Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Border Control Force

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the nature, pay and conditions of the border control service force being raised to enforce control of the boundary between the British and Russian zones.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): This force will consist of 5,000 Germans who will be largely recruited from police officers and other serving and redundant officials. It will control the movement of persons and goods on the Eastern boundary of the British zone. This has hitherto been the responsibility of local German police forces. The force will be accommodated, if possible, in private billets, or in huts if billets are not available. Monthly salaries will range from 149 Deutchemarks to 358 Deutchemarks.

and annual leave from 18 days to 31 days. A small British element, recruited within the Control Commission, will be attached to the force.

Mr. Bramall: Can my hon. Friend say who will control this force when the Western German Government is set up?

Mr. Mayhew: That will be a matter for the Western German Government.

Industry (Control and Ownership)

Mr. Albu: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the terms of the Memorandum of the Military Government on the Constitution for a Western German Government, the power to legislate on matters concerning the control and ownership of industry will rest with the Laender Governments or with the Federal Government.

Mr. Mayhew: The Memorandum as drafted by the Military Governors allows both the Federal Government and Laender Governments to legislate on matters concerning the control and ownership of industry. The right of the Federal Government to legislate on these matters is limited to those cases where it is clearly impossible for a single Land to enact legislation, or where the legislation if enacted would be detrimental to the rights or interests of other Laender. The right of the Laender to legislate is subject to the overriding validity of federal law, if the Federal Government does in fact legislate. Under the terms of the Memorandum it would therefore


depend upon the circumstances of each case whether the Land or Federal Government is competent.

Mr. Albu: Who will be the arbiter in such circumstances?

Mr. Mayhew: I understand that it rests with the Federal Government.

Mr. Nigel Birch: Will the Under-Secretary consider publishing as a White Paper the draft constitution for Western Germany and the Memorandum on it by the Western Powers, as that would make it far easier to follow these things?

Mr. Mayhew: That is a different matter, but I will certainly consider it.

Land Reform

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Land Reform Law, passed by the Parliament of North Rhine-Westphalia, was rejected by the Governor of this Land.

Mr. Mayhew: The Bill to which my hon. Friend refers was refused assent by the Regional Commissioner because it involved a serious loss of agricultural production, and because it was ultra vires in that it attempted to take retrospective action stretching back beyond the date of Military Government Ordinance No. 103 which is the legal basis of action by the Land Government in this matter. My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the necessity of pressing on with the carrying through of land reform, and in these circumstances our authorities in Germany have themselves prepared legislation, based on the law passed by Schleswig-Holstein, which will be applicable in those Laender which, like North Rhine-Westphalia, have failed to pass the necessary legislation themselves.

Mr. Bramall: Does not my hon. Friend consider that German agricultural experts as are competent as British experts to decide what constitutes a loss of agricultural production?

Mr. Mayhew: I can only say that this was very carefully gone into with our own experts, with the conclusion I have described. I cannot recall for the moment the estimates of the German experts on this matter.

Sir Peter Macdonald: In view of the fact that it is of the utmost importance that the maximum amount of food should be produced in this territory, does not the Under-Secretary think it is very important that these estates should not be broken up into smaller units, thereby militating against maximum food production at the present time?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not accept the implication that all schemes of land reform decrease food production. On the contrary, there are other factors tending to the opposite conclusion, but I have it against this scheme that it would have seriously reduced food production.

Mr. Bramall: Is my hon. Friend aware that this scheme was agreed to by all the major parties, and does it not make a farce of democracy that all parties having reached agreement, outside experts come along and over-rule them?

Mr. Mayhew: On one of the important subjects I have mentioned, the question of the retroactive nature of the proposed scheme, there was a wide measure of support for our scheme, including the support of the Social Democratic Party.

Mr. Vane: Can the hon. Member confirm that this scheme was supported by any party other than the Socialists in North Rhine-Westphalia?

Joint Export-Import Agency

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many members there are on the Joint Export-Import Agency Board in the bizone; how many of these are British; who the British members are; and what their qualifications are.

Mr. Mayhew: The Board of the Joint Export-Import Agency consists of nine members. They are the Financial Adviser and Economic Adviser to each of the Military Governors of the three Western zones, and the Director-General and two Deputy Directors-General of the Agency. The three British members are Sir Eric Coates and Sir Cecil Weir, the Financial and Economic Advisers respectively to the British Military Governor, and Mr. J. F. Cahan, Deputy Director-General of the Agency.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Joint


Export-Import Agency of the bizone last published a balance sheet; and whether this can be seen.

Mr. Mayhew: No balance sheet has yet been published by the Joint Export-Import Agency.

Mr. Piratin: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how long this organisation has been in existence, whether there has been time for a balance sheet to be published and, if not, whether one is about to be published?

Mr. Mayhew: We are now considering publication with the American Government.

Mr. Piratin: Why is it necessary to consider publication. Surely, an organisation of this kind, which has a substantial financial account, ought to publish an annual balance sheet. Can we have a guarantee that there will be a balance sheet?

Mr. Mayhew: I can only repeat that we are considering publication. If the accounts are not published, they will be available for the confidential information of the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what salaries are paid to the British members of the Joint Export-Import Agency Board; and what firms they represent or are connected with.

Mr. Mayhew: They receive salaries in respect of their appointments with the Control Commission and no additional remuneration as members of the Board. The only member who has outside business connections is Sir Cecil Weir, who is a partner in the Glasgow firm of Schrader, Mitchell and Weir.

Social Insurance Pensions

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British representative on the Bipartite Board in Germany refused to agree to the rise in social insurance pensions voted in December by the West German Economic Council.

Mr. Mayhew: The Bipartite Board of Military Governors was unable to approve the ordinance concerned in its

present form because no clear estimate was offered of the increased expenditure involved or of the way in which it was intended to meet such expenditure. At the same time sympathetic consideration was promised to any proposals of a more limited nature designed to remove anomalies and inequities in the present system. It was also made clear that once a proper actuarial investigation has been made the more far-reaching proposals involving increased benefits over a wider field could be submitted for reconsideration.

Mr. Bramall: Will my hon. Friend again bear in mind the danger to the development of democracy in Germany when every matter, even of a comparatively non-political nature, which comes before these democratic organisations is vetoed by the Military Government?

Mr. Mayhew: I am sure my hon. Friend will cordially agree that the sooner responsibility can be shifted on to Germans the better. That will happen soon, but while responsibility is ours we must carry it out properly.

Eastern Provinces (Dr. Gereke's Speech)

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action is contemplated by the British authorities in Germany in connection with the speech of Dr. Gereke, Minister of Agriculture for Lower Saxony, at Lebenstedt on 6th March, demanding the return of Germany's Eastern Provinces; and whether it is the policy of the British authorities to permit revisionist speeches of this type.

Mr. Mayhew: The speech in question was made at a meeting of the Lower Saxony Farmers' Association. Full reports of the speech are not available, but our inquiries lead to the conclusion that Dr. Gereke said nothing of an inflamatory nature on the subject of Germany's Eastern Provinces on this occasion. If my hon. Friend has any information to the contrary, my right hon. Friend will be glad to examine it.

Mr. Bramall: Does not my hon. Friend consider that in the present state of German nationalism anything which encourages revisionist tendencies is extremely likely to be inflammatory?

Professor Savory: Will the Under-Secretary make it clear that these Provinces were given to Poland as compensation for her Eastern Provinces, of which she was unjustly deprived by the Yalta Agreement?

Prime Minister's Visit (Press Arrangements)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what Press arrangements were made in the British zone of Germany and in Berlin for the recent visit of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Mayhew: Comprehensive arrangements were made to enable British, Allied and German correspondents, photographers and newsreel cameramen to report the recent visit of the Prime Minister to Berlin and the British zone of Germany. I am aware that the plans miscarried at some points with consequent inconvenience to correspondents. The British Military Governor has asked me to express his regret for these breakdowns, the reasons for which are being investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINE RAILWAYS (BRITISH PENSIONERS)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the payment of pensions to retired employees.of the former British railways in Argentina, now living on pensions in the United Kingdom; and whether an agreement has,been reached in this connection with the Argentine Government.

Mr. Mayhew: Considerable hardship was caused to the pensioners of the former British railways and others living in this country by the action of the Argentine Government some months ago in placing a ban on the remittance of funds abroad. This hardship was somewhat alleviated by a recent decree of the Argentine Central Bank permitting the remittance of sums not exceeding 250 pesos a month. The matter will, however, be pursued further in the context of wider questions of Anglo-Argentine payments on which it is hoped to reach agreement in the course of the current negotiations.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the hon. Member realise that these retired

men are getting only about half of what they are entitled to, and that the Argentine Government, in addition to having broken their meat contract with us, have broken their contract with these men?

Mr. Mayhew: I appreciate the hardship involved. We do not intend to let things rest where they are now.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Will this point be fully considered by the delegation now in the Argentine?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, it has been brought to the notice of the delegation.

Mr. Teeling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the officials of Buenos Aires tramways and other organisations are now having their contracts broken by the Argentine Government, and that the rest of South America, and this country, too, is beginning to realise that Argentine Government agreements are very little better than scraps of paper?

Oral Answers to Questions — CARDINAL MINDSZENTY (TRIAL)

Mr. Hollis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he will be in a position to issue the contemplated White Paper on the trial of Cardinal Mindszenty.

Mr. Mayhew: As the House is aware, my right hon. Friend has received no reliable report by an impartial eyewitness of the trial. He is further handicapped by having no details of the treatment meted out to the Cardinal between the date of his arrest and the hearing of the case. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, reached the conclusion that it will not be possible to produce a satisfactory White Paper on the trial.

Mr. Hollis: While I fully appreciate that there would be little purpose in producing a White Paper so white that there would be nothing in it, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that we have had a promise from the Foreign Secretary that he will not desist from attempts to discover and publish the facts? While we are not asking the Government to publish anything before they are in possession of the facts, can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the Government are not desisting from their efforts to discover the facts?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, we are naturally interested in receiving the facts, and if in future it is justified, we will issue a White Paper.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the hon. Gentleman also give full publicity to the details of the obstruction which the Government have met with in their attempts to elicit the facts?

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman has said that in the circumstances it would not be possible to produce what he called a "satisfactory" White Paper. Would he amend that, and say that in no circumstances would it be possible to have a satisfactory White Paper on this subject?

Mr. Mayhew: A satisfactory White Paper is one which gives the facts. As I have already explained, we have not sufficient facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — BULGARIA (ESPIONAGE CHARGES)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has investigated the charges of espionage in 1944 in Bulgaria made by the Bulgarian Government against Mr. Burt-Andrews of the British Legation in Bulgaria, though he did not go to Bulgaria till 1946 and with what result; upon what grounds the declaration by the same Government that Mr. Greenhill, First Secretary to the British Legation, is persona non grata on a similar charge, is founded; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter

Mr. Mayhew: The charges brought against Mr. Burt-Andrews and Mr. Greenhill are totally untrue and unfounded. As to the last part of the Question, I have nothing at present to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) on 16th March last.

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTERN EUROPE (UNITED STATES EXPORT POLICY)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish in full the text of the memorandum received from America, setting out the export licensing policy of the

United States Government, and urging the United Kingdom, as one of the countries participating in the Marshall Plan, to limit its trade with the countries of Eastern Europe.

Mr. Mayhew: No such memorandum has been received.

Mr. Plaits-Mills: Does the hon. Gentleman really deny that in the last week of October the Foreign Secretary received from the Marshall Aid authorities not only a memorandum but three lists of articles which the Americans demanded we should refrain from exporting to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe? Is the real position this: that the shame that he feels at the servile position he has brought our country into, requires him to deny these truths to the British people?

Mr. Mayhew: I do deny the receipt of any such memorandum. As to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I can only say that he has a powerful, creative imagination.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH TROOPS, AQABA

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he took to ascertain from the United Nations Acting Mediator on Palestine whether Israeli troops had crossed into Transjordan and clashed with the Arab Legion, which had been denied by the Israeli Government, before sending additional troops to Aqaba; and whether he is aware that the sending of additional troops to Aqaba is a breach of the resolution of the Security Council of 29th May, 1948, which prohibits the despatch of armed forces to a number of countries in the Middle East, including Transjordan.

Mr. Mayhew: I understand from a paper circulated to the Security Council that the Transjordan representatives at Rhodes immediately brought to the notice of the Acting Mediator the reports received from Amman that Israeli troops had violated Transjordan territory. At the same time His Majesty's Government emphasised to Dr. Bunche the urgent need of first-hand reports by the United Nations observers on the spot.
As to the second part of the Question, His Majesty's Government have never considered that the United Kingdom, which has not been engaged in the conflict in Palestine, was debarred, under the Security Council Resolution of 29th May, from reinforcing, supplying or otherwise altering the composition of its Forces stationed in the Middle East.

Mr. Janner: Will my hon. Friend say, first, whether Dr. Bunche has stated that the sending of troops to Aqaba was a violation of its duties by a member of the United Nations Organisation; second, why he permits the circulation of exaggerated, lying and highly inflammatory statements before any investigation has taken place; and third, whether he intends to assist or destroy the peace negotiations now going on at Rhodes?

Mr. Platts-Mills: He wants to destroy them.

Mr. Mayhew: Our action in Aqaba has had an extremely beneficial effect on the negotiations for an armistice. On the subject of exaggerated reports, they have been made in connection with Palestine, but not in that context—very often a different context altogether.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Has my hon. Friend's attention been called to a report in this morning's "Daily Herald," according to which the purpose of the Transjordan Government in inviting British troops to the Aqaba frontier was to release men of the Arab Legion for action in the disputed triangle in the centre of Palestine? If so, and if he agrees with it, does he regard that as a proper use of the Anglo-Transjordan Treaty?

Mr. Mayhew: That hardly arises from this Question, but the hon. Member's interpretation of the word "action" is obviously open to doubt. I can only say that we are now considering the request from the Transjordan Government.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it not true that the best way to prevent any interference with the frontiers of Transjordan is to have British troops where they are? Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the overwhelming sentiment of the country is in favour of a practical demonstration of our interest in the integrity of the Arab States?

Oral Answers to Questions — FAR EAST (BRITISH PROPERTY LOSSES)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the hardship suffered by British subjects in Northern China when their property was stolen or looted during or immediately after the war; what hope there is of their obtaining compensation from the Japanese authorities; and if he will consider the use of the balance of the Aid to China Fund for helping these deserving British subjects.

Mr. Mayhew: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." The payment of compensation in respect of losses in Far Eastern foreign territories incurred as a result of the war with Japan will depend on the terms of the eventual Peace Settlement with Japan. It is clearly not possible for me to forecast what these terms will be. With regard to the last part of the Question, I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the British United Aid to China Fund. This is a purely private fund over which His Majesty's Government have no control.

Mr. Gammans: Is it not silly and farcical to pretend that these people are ever likely to get anything from Japan? If, however, the hon. Gentleman feels there is a chance of getting something from the Japanese, would it not be as well for His Majesty's Treasury to make advances to the people who are destitute as a result of the war?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir, I cannot agree with the last part of the question. I will neither deny there is a chance, nor will I raise the hopes of those who hope to benefit, because quite clearly the chance is not a good one.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN (ILLEGAL OPERATIONS)

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what powers he has to take proceedings against a medical practitioner, registered in the United Kingdom, who performs an operation which is illegal in the Sudan.

Mr. Mayhew: I am advised that a medical practitioner registered in the Medical Register kept by the General


Council of Medical Education and Registration in the United Kingdom, may be summoned to appear before the Council if he performs in the Sudan an operation which is illegal there, and, if found guilty, may have his name erased from the Medical Register. Further, any person who performs in the Sudan an operation which is illegal there, can, while in the Sudan, be prosecuted under the Sudan criminal code.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: Does the converse hold true? If, for example, the Sudanese Government were to legalise the operation of female circumcision as practised in Egypt, which would be acceptable to the Sudanese, would any medical practitioner, doing the operation, supervising it or allowing it to be done in his hospital, be liable to be hauled before the General Medical Council?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, I understand that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGIONAL PACTS

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what negotiations and discussions have taken place, with a view to the conclusion of other regional pacts than the Atlantic Pact.

Mr. Mayhew: So far as I am aware, none, Sir.

Mr. Langford-Holt: In view of the overwhelming support that the Atlantic Pact has had in this country, will the hon. Gentleman tell us of any other regional pacts which are envisaged by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Mayhew: We have not signed the Atlantic Pact yet. Perhaps we had better do that first.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH COUNCIL

Yugoslavia

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the nature and extent of the work of the British Council in Yugoslavia; to what extent the educational and cultural influence of the Council receives the appreciation and support of the Yugoslav people; and if

any modification of the existing programme of activities is under consideration.

Mr. Mayhew: The British Council maintains establishments in both Belgrade and Zagreb. Well-stocked libraries are maintained in both towns and considerably used by the Yugoslays. An average of 270 students attend weekly English classes in Belgrade. Film shows, particularly those on medical subjects, are much in demand. In addition to these routine arrangements, recent major activities have included two concert tours and an Exhibition of Theatrical Design at which attendances in Belgrade and Zagreb were 6,000 and 4,000 respectively. It is not intended at present to modify existing arrangements.

Sir P. Hannon: Are the activities of the British Council in Yugoslavia receiving the sympathy of the Tito Government?

Mr. Mayhew: We get useful co-operation from the Yugoslav Government. We would always be glad with their good will to extend these activities.

Spain

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the work of the British Council in Spain, giving the number of educational and cultural centres now in operation and the number of students attending courses in English language and the British way of life.

Mr. Mayhew: The British Council has a central office in Madrid and offices combined with British Institutes in Barcelona, Bilbao, Seville and Valencia. At the end of December, 1948, there were 5,200 students and, in addition, 4,418 members attached to these institutes. English classes, lectures, exhibitions and film shows are regularly staged and well attended at all the centres.

Sir P. Hannon: In view of the very valuable work being done by the Council in Spain, would the Foreign Office now turn a more benevolent look upon the possibility of future friendly relations with Spain?

Mr. Mayhew: Wider considerations have to be taken into account there.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA (SITUATION)

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent consideration by the United Nations of the Report of the Temporary Commission on Korea, he will now make a statement regarding the present position in that country and the policy of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Mayhew: The United Nations Commission on Korea arrived in Korea last month and has begun its work. The Commission's main assignment is to do what it can to bring about the unification of Korea. In view of the attitude adopted by the Communist authorities in Northern Korea towards the previous United Nations Commission, my right hon. Friend is afraid that the new Commission can expect little co-operation from them. Meanwhile, the Government of the Republic of Korea in the South has so far been recognised by the Governments of the United States, China, France, the Philippines and by His Majesty's Government. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, our former Consul-General in Seoul was recently appointed His Majesty's Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA (LOAN)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he now has any information to give on the possibilities of a loan to the Burmese Government.

Mr. Mayhew: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 7th March.

Mr. Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that the sooner we expedite a loan to the Burmese Government the sooner will the problem of Malaya be settled, because of the food?

Mr. Mayhew: There are many other factors, particularly the communal difficulty.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that no loan will be made to the Burmese Government before they have made a satisfactory settlement with expropriated British interests?

Mr. Gammans: Before the hon. Gentleman considers a loan to the Burmese Government, will he be sure there is a Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Ewes (Slaughter)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Food to state his policy in regard to the slaughter of sheep while in lamb.

The Ministry of Food (Mr. Strachey): The graders are required by a standing instruction not to accept for purchase any sheep which, in their opinion, is in lamb unless it is necessary or desirable that the animal should be taken for immediate slaughter under the casualty arrangements. The attention of all the graders has been drawn to this instruction and they have been reminded of the need to exercise the utmost care in the examination of all ewes.

Sir T. Moore: In order to comply with your request, Mr. Speaker, to avoid unnecessary supplementary questions, I simply say that I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Bulk Buying Contracts (Prices)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Food why he will not give the prices paid under his bulk-buying contracts after they have been published by the selling country.

Mr. Strachey: It is usually agreed between the Governments of the buying and selling countries that prices should not be published. Where the Government of the selling country takes it upon itself unilaterally to disclose prices I, of course, consider whether publicity should be given in this country also. But I cannot undertake to confirm or deny unofficial reports about prices which may be current abroad.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: When the deal has been concluded, is it not right that the people in both countries should know what prices their Governments have incurred on their behalf?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is not the real reason for this the fact that if the figures


were published they would show up the utter incompetence of the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. In cases where they have been published they have shown just the reverse.

Potatoes

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food how many tons of potatoes are available under the reduction of £1 per ton offer for stock feeding; and how many tons of these are the property of his Department.

Mr. Strachey: Under the guarantee to growers I must buy any sound ware potatoes now offered to me, and in consequence we expect to have about 200,000 tons to sell for stock feed between now and the end of the season. I cannot yet say for how long the price reduction recently announced will continue.

Sir W. Smithers: Can the Minister say how much more this last disastrous transaction will add to the £10 million he has already lost?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I cannot give to the House an estimate of the end of season position.

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food how he computed his estimated loss of £10 million on potatoes.

Mr. Strachey: This estimate of the trading loss in potatoes and carrots for the financial year 1948–49, which of course covers part of two crop years, was computed by reference mainly to the surpluses which my Department expected to handle as a result of the guarantee of the grower's market at fixed prices; the cost of imported supplies; the price premiums paid on purchases of potatoes for end of season reserve; and the cost of emergency storage under the allocation scheme put into operation last year.

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food has stated that the surplus of potatoes is five million tons, will the Minister now say what price he expects to pay for them and what price he expects to get when he sells them again?

Mr. Strachey: My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that the surplus of this year's crop as against last year's crop was five million tons. We shall have five million more tons this year than last, but not a surplus of five million tons over the demand.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is not the Minister aware that I questioned the Parliamentary Secretary twice on the same subject and she confirmed that there was a five million ton surplus?

Mr. Strachey: Surplus in the sense I have just given.

Sir Ronald Ross: How much money went to Eire by the process of buying Eire potatoes at a high price and selling them back to Eire at a low price?

Mr. Strachey: There was a loss on Eire potatoes as on the other potatoes. I will give the hon. Gentleman the figure if he will give me notice of the Question.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the Minister give, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, the actual amounts involved in each of the surpluses mentioned in his original reply?

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food what is the total tonnage of ware potatoes exported by him in the current potato season; what he has paid for it; what he has received for it; and how many more tons he expects to export from the present crop.

Mr. Strachey: Up to 3rd March, exports of ware potatoes of the 1948 crop amounted to 48,503 tons; the f.o.b. cost was £571,286 and Ministry receipts £477,577. A further 10,000 tons of potatoes may be sold abroad.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the Minister explain why he gave an answer on 21st February that 140,000 tons of ware and seed potatoes would be exported from the 1948–49 crop, and why the figure is now so much smaller?

Mr. Strachey: I may have hoped that we should be able to export a larger amount than this, but, as I have said, the final amount at the end of the year is not certain. The figure I have given is the present forecast.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the Minister lose £4 5s. per ton on the average export?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, nothing like that amount.

Mr. Butcher: Is not the Minister imperilling the public interest by making these disclosures?

Algerian Wine

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Food how much Algerian wine is at present in the vaults at London docks; how long it has been there, and what storage fees have been paid in respect of it

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food of how many gallons of Algerian wine does his Department stand possessed; and what price per gallon he gave for it.

Mr. Strachey: It would not be in the public interest to disclose the stocks held by my Department. The wine arrived in this country at various times between February and May last year. Storage fees are approximately 3d. per gallon per annum.

Sir W. Smithers: When will the Minister stop this folly of bulk purchase? Is it not a fact that he has got about £1 million worth of this wine in stock? If he wants further particulars will he look at the "Sunday Express" for 13th March? Will he also be good enough to read a pamphlet just published by Lord Teviot "Why I should not be a Socialist"? It might get through his thick head.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Can the Minister give any reason why, in this case, publication would not be in the public interest?

Mr. Strachey: There is no reason whatever to make an exception in this case from the general principle, for which I have given the reason in a number of cases.

Captain Crooksbank: Has not the reason given generally been that publication might prejudice further purchases? Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is going further into the Algerian wine market?

Mr. Strachey: I should have no hesitation in doing so if it proved advisable that we should make further purchases of Algerian wine. Why not?

Mr. Teeling: Has not the Minister of Food informed the wine interests in this country that unless this Algerian wine is definitely sold, he will cut down future imports of ordinary wine into this country?

Mr. Strachey: indicated dissent.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is hiding behind an excuse which has no validity. Is he really saying to the House that he proposes continuing in the Algerian wine market? Is he not laying himself open to the suspicion of refusing to admit that he has made a mess of it?

Mr. Strachey: There is not the slightest reason to suppose that these transactions have any element of mistake in them.

Fruit and Vegetable Imports

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Food what consultations he had with the representatives of the British fruit and vegetable growers and the Channel Island producers before signing the 1949 fruit and vegetable imports agreement with the Netherlands.

Mr. Strachey: On these matters I receive advice from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture who has, I understand, been in touch with British horticultural interests.

Mr. Baker White: Is the Minister aware that there were only very general consultations at an early stage of the proceedings, and that no notice at all was taken of the advice given by the British horticultural industry? Is he aware that the agreement has given rise to despondency and anger throughout that industry?

Mr. Strachey: If we always took in full all the advice given by the British horticultural industry, I am afraid that the price of vegetables would be very high indeed.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is the Minister aware that, particularly in onions, losses in East Anglia have been very considerable, and that the new agreement which has been signed for the coming year extends the number of countries from which


there will be competition? Can nothing be done, at least to regulate the period of the year, by way of timing these imports so that they harm our people to a much less extent?

Mr. Strachey: Of course, it would be possible to exclude these foreign vegetables, but only at the price of dearer vegetables for the consumers in this country.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only the other day I had to pay 10d. for a very small and pathetic-looking lettuce? Will he undertake to see that greenstuffs in this country are within the reach of the humblest housewife?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is the Minister aware, taking the one crop that I have mentioned, that the price of Spanish onions has been twice as much as that for which British onions could have sold, if they had been allowed to find their way into the shops?

Mr. Strachey: Surely that question can only mean that if Spanish onions were dearer, they were not interfering with the price of British onions. I should think that even the hon. Gentleman could see that.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the Minister say whether he consulted not only the Minister of Agriculture but the Secretary of State for Scotland, and whether the National Farmers' Union of Scotland were consulted, in particular in regard to soft fruits?

Mr. Strachey: My Department consults the Agricultural Department. It is their business to make further consultations.

Potato Merchants and Agents

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food what steps are necessary for an ex-Service man to enter the potato merchant trade and for a potato merchant to become a Ministry agent; how many applications for merchants' and agents' licences, respectively, he has received since 1945; how many of each he has granted; and what is the usual ground for rejection.

Mr. Strachey: With permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the answer, which is necessarily rather long.

Following is the answer:

No one requires a licence to sell potatoes by wholesale but only to buy direct from the grower; and to get such a licence an ex-Service man or any other person must satisfy my Department that he has established a substantial wholesale trade, or has an extensive knowledge of that trade. If he is a disabled ex-Service man he may be granted a licence if one is necessary for his rehabilitation. Any licensed potato merchant may be appointed a Ministry agent if he is nominated by a grower, has traded for at least a year in the area concerned and has the necessary equipment and organisation for handling Ministry business.

Since 1st January, 1946, 997 applications for merchants' licences have been received and 241 granted, the most common ground for rejection being lack of experience of wholesale trading. In the same period, 302 merchants have applied for agencies and 198 have been approved, the usual ground for rejection being lack of suitable facilities.

United States Personnel

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Minister of Food what arrangements have been entered into regarding the supply of rationed foodstuffs to personnel under Command Headquarters, United States Air Forces in Britain, Bushey Park, Middlesex; and what ration scales are applied to those military and civilian personnel, respectively.

Mr. Strachey: All the rationed foodstuffs for the United States Air Force Services personnel at Bushey Park, are imported direct from America by the American Government. The civilians use ordinary civilian ration books and are consequently provided with food by us.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Is not the Minister aware that it has been published in this country, from sources in America, that some of the foods are British rationed goods and that the ration scales include, among other things, I lb. of meat per day for each person, I lb. of butter and a dozen eggs per week? Would the Minister agree that acceptance of Colonial status vis-à-vis America, means that the same ration scales should be afforded to us?

Mr. Strachey: As I have already said, the ration scales of the U.S. Services are not the concern of my Department because the rations are brought direct from America. The civilians receive the same scales as we do ourselves.

Brigadier Medlicott: Would not the Minister agree that we welcome every one of these men here and that, if necessary, we will gladly share our food with them?

Mr. Teeling: if the rations include tinned potatoes, is there any reason why we should not supply them from this country?

Mr. Henry Strauss: Are "foodstuffs to personnel" what used to be called "foods to people"?

Surplus Eggs

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Food whether surplus eggs may now be sold to the public generally; or whether they are available only to registered customers.

Mr. Strachey: So far surplus eggs may only be sold to customers registered for shell eggs. If eggs were to become really plentiful in April and May, I should allow them to be sold freely after the allocations have been fully met.

Mr. Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is now a surplus of eggs in various country districts and that the shops are prepared to sell them to unregistered customers after they have made allocations to their registered customers?

Bacon Ration (Hostel, Shanklin)

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Minister of Food if he will now give the decision of the local food control committee regarding the simultaneous issue of eight weeks' bacon ration to the Manor House Hostel, Shanklin, Isle of Wight, in the last week of February.

Mr. Strachey: I understand that the food control committee has instructed a solicitor with a view to a prosecution.

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order. I wish to say that if the prosecution succeeds, I shall move that another Lynskey Tribunal be set up.

Broccoli

Commander Agnew: asked the Minister of Food if he will give an estimate of the tonnage of broccoli needed to supply the home market in the autumn and winter season, 1949–50; and whether before making any further arrangements for importations under licence, he will ascertain from the Minister of Agriculture the tonnage which can be expected to be supplied by home producers.

Mr. Strachey: No reliable estimate can be made now of what the demand for broccoli and cauliflower is likely to be next winter. This will depend on the price, the weather and the supplies and prices of other vegetables and foods. Consultations with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture invariably take place before broccoli and cauliflower imports are authorised.

Commander Agnew: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot now give an estimate of the likely home needs of broccoli in this country, will he say on what date he will be able to give an estimate so that we may know how much extra, if any, he will need to import over and above what the home producers can supply?

Mr. Strachey: Hon. Members always leave out of these calculations the little matter price. The need, in the sense of the effective demand or what the market can absorb, depends on the price, and if the price is brought down by imports, the need will be that much the greater.

Commander Agnew: Are we to understand that the Minister intends to use the price weapon in order to ruin the Cornish broccoli industry?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I intend to use the price weapon, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman calls it, in order to give cheap broccoli to the British housewife.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Toll Roads and Bridges

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport the date by which he intends to free all the toll roads and bridges now operating under his control.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): There are no toll roads or bridges operating under my control. There are four toll bridges and one toll road on or connecting trunk routes and I am in negotiation with the owners, who include the British Transport Commission, with a view to freeing them. It is not possible to say when the negotiations will be completed.

Mr. Shepherd: Why should toll roads be operated by the British Transport Commission? Is it the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to see that all the penalties of nationalisation are visited upon the people while none of the advantages accrue to them?

Mr. Barnes: These were properties of the old railway companies which have been taken over by the British Transport Commission.

Mr. Shepherd: Surely a toll road can be freed over-night?

Hungerford Footbridge

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the fact that he proposes to extend the Hungerford Footbridge on the south side for the Festival of Britain, he will also take steps to extend it into Charing Cross Station.

Mr. Barnes: This extension has not previously been suggested to me, and I cannot see that it would help the Exhibition traffic. There may be some case for it on more general grounds, and I find that this is under examination by the Railway Executive, who are responsible for the footbridge.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of this extension would be negligible, and that unless this footbridge is extended, people coming from the Exhibition will be decanted at the bottom of Villiers Street instead of being able to go to Charing Cross Station?

Mr. Barnes: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend is unaware of the fact that a special Bailey bridge will be constructed right on to the Exhibition site.

Sir Stanley Reed: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it is part of the long-term policy of his Department to get rid of this hideous footbridge?

Facilities, North London Area

Mr. Ernest Davies asked: the Minister of Transport (1) why, in settling the programme of reorganisation and development of the London Transport Executive in accordance with Section 4 (2) of the Transport Act, 1947, he has agreed to priority being given to the construction of the extension of the Bakerloo Tube and authorised it to be commenced in 1950, when improvements can be brought to a larger section of the population, and at cheaper cost, in more needy areas, such as North London; and
(2) whether, in settling the programme for the development of London's transport facilities in accordance with Section 4 (2) of the Transport Act, 1947, he will include as a first priority the electrification of the railways serving the North London area, including Tottenham, Wood Green, Edmonton and Enfield.

Mr. Barnes: As hon. Members are aware, the British Transport Commission have recently submitted to me a report, which will shortly be published, giving their views on the proposals made by the Railway (London Plan) Committee. No programme for the development of transport in London has been submitted for my approval under Section 4 (2) of the Transport Act, which in any case does not require my formal consent to specific projects. I cannot anticipate the eventual decision as to the priority of surface electrification in the London area, by my hon. Friend may be assured that the needs of North London will be fully taken into account. The extension of the Bakerloo Line to Camberwell will enable the service on this line as a whole to be improved and is on this account urgently needed. Powers for this extension were obtained in 1931 and some of the preparatory work has been done. The scheme has been approved for inclusion in the Investment Programme for commencement in 1950, provided that the agreed level of investment permits.

Mr. Davies: While I appreciate the need for improving the facilities in South-East London, does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the imminent publication of the working plan, it might have been better to await its publication and discussion before


authorising this expenditure on the extension of a tube, which is the most costly of all capital development at the present time?

Mr. Barnes: I do not think that it is desirable to hold up any specific undertaking because of a question of the consideration of a larger programme, which the London railway plan involves.

Cargo Ships, Scottish Ports

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Transport how many cargo ships were discharged at Glasgow, Greenock and Ardrossan, respectively, during the month of January.

Mr. Barnes: Three hundred and eleven cargo ships were discharged at Glasgow, 35 at Greenock and 28 at Ardrossan.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the well-known capacity of the port of Ardrossan to handle all appropriate traffic, would not the right hon. Gentleman save a considerable amount of money by using this port much more extensively?

Mr. Barnes: I am afraid that people living in other ports could advance a similar reason.

Sir T. Moore: They might not be justified.

Oral Answers to Questions — BERLIN (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Prime Minister what was the purpose of his recent visit to Berlin.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I went to Berlin to inspect the Air Lift.

Mr. Teeling: If the right hon. Gentleman went to Berlin to inspect the Air Lift, can he explain why nothing was done at all from the public relations point of view to make the relatives in this country of people in the Air Lift aware of the hard work that is being done? Can he also explain why he visited the Americans at Templehof with great publicity before he visited our people at Gatow, which caused great discontent?

The Prime Minister: I understand that a Question has already been answered

about publicity. Of course, that is not a matter for me at all. The arrangements for my visit were entirely made over there.

Mr. Teeling: Has not the right hon. Gentleman got a public relations officer? Why did he not go with the right hon. Gentleman?

The Prime Minister: Obviously because there was no particular need why he should accompany me in view of the fact that the arrangements for publicity were being made on that side.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: As the Prime Minister has told us that he went to Berlin to see the Air Lift, in order to encourage the Royal Air Force, will he tell us what he thought of the Air Lift?

The Prime Minister: I have already done that, and I thought that adequate publicity was given to my remarks.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (LEGAL JUDGMENT)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the judgment of Mr. Justice Vaisey in reference to Sebel Products Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue; and whether he will give an undertaking that Government Departments will refund moneys wrongly collected by them, whether through an error of fact or an error of law.

The Prime Minister: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the case of Sebel Products Limited v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise. The effect of this judgment on the practice of Government Departments is being considered.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman, will he say whether it will ever be right for the State to do what would be considered most dishonest in a private person?

Mr. David Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a somewhat artificial distinction in the law between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law and that frequent injustices arise as a result of the application of that distinction? Will he have this branch of


the law looked into with great care with a view to avoiding these injustices in future?

The Prime Minister: I have said that the effects on the practice of Government Departments is being carefully considered. I am sure that those considering them will take into consideration the remarks of the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRIBUTIVE TRADES (RESEARCH)

Mr. Cobb: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will take steps to encourage the distributive trades to set up a research association by contributing towards the cost on the same basis as those research associations which are partly financed by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No, Sir. It is for the distributive trades themselves to propose methods for meeting their own needs in scientific research and in doing so to take account of the facilities open to them, both under the D.S.I.R. scheme for the establishment of research associations and under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, as regards the products of an industry for which a development council may be set up.

Mr. Cobb: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the distributive trades in this country have had several centuries in which to start some research into the costs of distribution and that they have not done so yet? Does he not think that the cost of living of this country is due to some extent to the high costs of distribution, and is it not time that we instituted some research into it?

Mr. Morrison: The point must be faced that it is not quite so easy for the distributive trades to go in for research as for productive industry to do so, but I would commend my hon. Friend's point to the consideration of the distributive trades and we will see what the result is. We can then consider it in the light of that result.

Sir William Darling: Is it not the case that the distributive trades are engaged in research every hour of every day and require to set up no specialist committee to inquire into it?

Oral Answers to Questions — C.O.I. (PHOTOGRAPHIC LIBRARY)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Lord President of the Council what is his policy for making available to political bodies the facilities of the photographic library of the Central Office of Information.

Mr. H. Morrison: Political bodies like any member of the Press and public are entitled to obtain pictures from the C.O.I. photographic library for Press publicity and research purposes on payment of the usual print, reproduction or display fees.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Lord President aware that the recent pamphlet of the Conservative Party for Wales and Monmouthshire makes use of C.O.I. photos for three out of four of its illustrations? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Can my right hen. Friend tell us to what extent other parties are availing themselves of this service?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, I am aware of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend draws attention and indeed, I am much complimented by the fact that the Conservative Party have recognised at long last the value of the Central Office of Information. It is the case that since January, 1949, the Conservative Party have been supplied with prints on five occasions and the Labour Party twice, which shows the high regard which the Conservative Party have for the Central Office of Information.

Brigadier Head: Is the Lord President aware that, in view of the "bonny babies" incident, it is most dangerous to consult this body, and that if we asked for a photograph of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), we might get a photograph of an ancient ruin?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK SUBSTITUTE (EXPERIMENTS)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the results of the experiments being carried out under his auspices at Cambridge University, designed to produce milk from wheat.

Mr. H. Morrison: No such experiments have been carried out at Cambridge, but I believe that the question refers to


observations recently made in Germany by workers for the Medical Research Council who are based on Cambridge. They have shown that a mixture including soya flour, wheat and other cereals, to which only a small proportion of dried milk is added, promises to be a useful substitute for dried milk itself in the nutrition of children. This, of course, is a very different thing from producing milk from wheat.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Cambridge University often conducts experiments elsewhere, and that it will be conducting a successful one on Saturday morning on the Thames?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Machinery

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will ascertain through his Department's war agricultural committees how many farmers' co-operative societies have been established in England and Wales with the object, inter alia, of securing a pooled supply of farm machinery; and how many similar associations of farmers for a like purpose.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): There are rather over 300 farmers' co-operative societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts. The number which have among their objects the operating or letting on hire of agricultural machinery, and the number of unregistered associations of farmers for a like purpose, is not known either to the Department or to county agricultural executive committees, but it is not thought to be large.

Mr. Reid: Does my hon. Friend consider that this attempt on the part of the farmers in self help is to be encouraged?

Mr. Brown: Certainly, and a great deal has been done to help them.

Foxes, Lancashire

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken by the Lancashire agricultural executive committee to protect poultry farmers in the neighbourhood of Ramsbottom from the depredations of foxes.

Mr. G. Brown: In order to encourage farmers to combine for the purpose of fox destruction, the executive committee have furnished the Lancashire county branch of the National Farmers' Union with particulars of the approved organisation for fox destruction societies and of the financial assistance which is available. Such societies have already been formed in the Rochdale and Nelson areas but no request for assistance has been received from the Bury area. The county agricultural executive committee propose, however, to arrange a meeting with the interests concerned to consider the formation of a similar society in that area.

Mr. Greenwood: In view of my hon. Friend's statement that no complaint has been received from this area, will he perhaps consult the files of his Department and refer to a letter which I sent to the Minister about a fortnight ago?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should listen to the reply. What I said was that no request for assistance has been received from the area.

County Committee's Officials, Sussex

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the severe criticism by the Lord Chief Justice of the chief cultivation officer and of a farm manager of the East Sussex agricultural committee as to their farming experience and integrity, details of which have been sent to him, he will reinstate farmers dispossessed by that committee; and if he will say on what grounds such appointments were made and what were the salaries paid to these two officials.

Mr. G. Brown: No, Sir. Dispossessions are made on the recommendations of the county agricultural executive committee and not of its officials. The chief cultivations officer and the farm manager were appointed on the grounds that they had the farming experience required for the carrying out of their duties. The chief cultivations officer's salary is on a scale £645–£760 and the farm manager was paid £7 per week.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what justification there is for a committee, subject to such comments by the learned judge, to have the power to direct or dispossess farmers?

Mr. Brown: In the first place, the Committee was not subject to such, or any other, comments by the learned judge. The learned judge was discussing replies made by this officer to questions in the box.

Common Land

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take to see that common land now cultivated by county executive committees does not revert to its former derelict condition when handed back to the commoners.

Mr. G. Brown: County agricultural executive committees are at present conducting a review of all requisitioned land, including commons, to enable my right hon. Friend to decide whether efficient agricultural use can be maintained if the land is derequisitioned or whether it is necessary for him to purchase the land under the powers conferred by section 85 of the Agriculture Act, 1947. In view of his special responsibility for commons, no decision to purchase common land would be made without taking fully into account the interests of the commoners and any other interests involved.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that I want to see the interests of the commoners duly protected, and is he also aware that we cannot afford to waste this vast expanse of land at a time when the consumers are kept short of food?

Mr. Brown: That is exactly why I said in reply that my right hon. Friend is considering all the circumstances.

Mr. Mitchison: Can my hon. Friend tell us if derelict land includes land worked for ironstone and so left derelict?

Court Farm, Stoke Orchard

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Agriculture when it is proposed to return Court Farm, Stoke Orchard, Gloucestershire, at present farmed by the county agricultural executive committee, to the owner.

Mr. G. Brown: As I said in answer to the previous Question, all requisitioned land is being reviewed to enable my right hon. Friend to decide whether it should be derequisitioned or purchased. A decision in respect of Court Farm has not yet been reached.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the county committee advised the Minister that this land should be given back to the owner by 25th March and asked the owner to make his arrangements, but that the Minister did not agree?

Mr. Brown: As I am advised, the hon. Gentleman is all wrong. The matter is still being considered with regard to the whole area, of which Court Farm forms only a small part. A decision cannot be reached about Court Farm until we have a decision about the whole area.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that much requisitioned land has been handed back; that in this case the county committee advised the Minister that it should be handed back by 25th March; that the farm was semi-derelict and that steps have now been taken by the owner to put it in order, but that the advice to hand it back has been countermanded by the Minister of Agriculture?

Mr. Brown: The Gloucester county committee is considering the future use of a large area of land in the Gotherington district of which Court Farm is a part. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman continually asserts, we have not yet received advice as to the future use of the whole block of land. I emphasise that. Until we get that decision, obviously it would be wrong to decide about any one part of the land.

Mr. Baldwin: I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESTRY

Northerwood House (Decoration)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the cost of the recent exterior decoration of his Department's premises at Northerwood House, Lyndhurst, Hampshire.

Mr. G. Brown: One thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven pounds.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As this decoration chiefly consisted in exterior painting with white paint, can he say how the Forestry Commission justifies this expenditure when no private owner can have any paint at all?

Mr. Brown: The second part of that Question, I would have thought, is a non-statement of fact—

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: What is a non-statement of fact?

Mr. Brown: I said, "was not a statement of fact"—the hon. Gentleman himself does a lot of that. In reply to the first part of the Question, this was a rather large valuable house presented to the Forestry Commission early in 1945, which had received no exterior decoration since 1939, and obviously needed to have something done.

Mr. Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman has said that I make a lot of non-statements of fact; what does he mean by that?
Later—

Mr. Nicholson: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary accused me of making frequent statements which were not statements of fact. Is that the sort of remark which should be bandied across the Floor of the House, even in jest?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know exactly to what the hon. Gentleman's answer was referring.

Mr. Nicholson: It is too frequently alleged in this House that people do not make statements of fact and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether that sort of thing should be allowed?

Mr. Speaker: I certainly cannot stop what a Minister chooses to answer. Every person is responsible for what he states.

Mr. Nicholson: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary responsible for that statement which he made, Mr. Speaker? Am I entitled to ask for an apology from the hon. Gentleman who accused me of making frequent statements which are not statements of fact? I maintain that I have a right to ask the Chair for its protection in this sort of case.

Mr. Speaker: Really, I think that is going a little too far. What does "a statement not according to fact" mean? It means that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken—that is all. Surely, we can all be mistaken at some time or other.

Mr. Nicholson: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I think you have got it wrong. In plain English the hon. Gentleman accused me of being a liar when, in fact, I made no statement of any sort whatever.

Mr. Speaker: Nothing of the kind. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary never said that the hon. Gentleman was a liar. He merely said that a statement was not according to fact; that, therefore, the hon. Gentleman was mistaken.

Mr. Nicholson: But I made no statement whatever.

Mr. Speaker: Then surely the matter does not arise.

Mr. Nicholson: As I had not said anything at all, Mr. Speaker, I think you should protect me from being called a liar.

Flagpole, Northerwood House

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the total cost, including the value of the timber concerned, of felling, transporting and installing the flagpole in his Department's premises at Northerwood House, Lyndhurst; and for what reason it was thought necessary to go to this expense.

Mr. G. Brown: This exceptional pole is 108 feet long, is believed to be the tallest home-grown flagstaff in Britain, and the opportunity was taken to display the magnificent Douglas fir timber produced in the New Forest. The total cost was £372 4s. 8d.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is it satisfactory that the Forestry Commission should spend £372 in erecting a flagpole? It seems to me that with the necessity for forestry this is the last item of expenditure which should be included. May I also ask the hon. Gentleman whether any instruction has been given to the Forestry Commission to avoid any such expenditure in the future?

Mr. Brown: On the second point I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman may rest assured that his point is taken. On the first point, it was a rather magnificent tree produced in one of our own forests, and I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman, having regard to his own constituency, is glad that home industries are being so advertised.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: If it is so magnificent, why is it being kept at Lyndhurst?

Commission's Flag

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Minister of Agriculture for what reason it has been considered necessary to design a special flag for the Forestry Commission; how many such flags have been made; and on what occasions they are to be flown.

Mr. G. Brown: The main reason for designing a special flag for the Forestry Commission is that it will have a useful publicity value. One such flag has been made and an additional twelve, of smaller size, are on order. They will be flown from Government premises whenever appropriate.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the publicity value of the Forestry Commission flying a flag, particularly in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) has just said about the flagpole? Would he consider at least flying this flag in a more populous place?

Mr. Brown: The flag will not be flown merely at the one centre in the New Forest. The Forestry Commission has many exhibits at agricultural shows, and it will not be the only exhibitor at those shows flying a distinctive flag.

Captain Crookshank: Can the Minister say which came first, the flag in this Question or the pole in the previous Question?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLITICAL PROCESSIONS, LONDON (PROHIBITION)

Captain Crookshank: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any statement to make on the disturbances in the Metropolitan Police district yesterday.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Yes, Sir. I have received a report from the Commissioner of Police about the disorder which occurred yesterday.
The Union Movement had informed the Commissioner of their intention to

organise a procession from Ridley Road to West Green, Tottenham, and had supplied him with particulars of the proposed route. As the Commissioner anticipated that disorder might arise on the route chosen he issued directions under the Public Order Act, 1936, prescribing a different route and prohibiting the use of banners and loud speaker vans on the route of the procession. The directions prescribing a different route were not disclosed to the organisers until Sunday morning with the object of preventing the new route from being publicly advertised.
Prior to the procession a meeting was held at Ridley Road. The organisers were warned Chat anything in the nature of provocative speeches would result in an immediate closing of the meeting. The speeches subsequently made did not call for police intervention. At the opening of the meeting about 500 people were present of whom the police estimate that one-third were supporters of the Union Movement. The crowd increased and towards the end of the meeting there were in the neighbourhood about 2,000 people who were clearly opposed to the meeting and bent on stopping the procession.
The opposing factions were not aware of the alteration in the route and assembled on the old route. They were prevented by the police from coming into contact with the procession, which moved off along the new route prescribed by the Commissioner. There were some attempts at this point to break the police cordon and ten arrests were made. The opponents of the procession used a loud speaker van to announce to their supporters the actual route which was being taken by the procession. Further attempts were made in the course of the march to interfere with the procession and obstruct the route, resulting in a further 16 arrests.
The intention of the organisers was to hold a final meeting at West Green, Tottenham. But on arriving within some hundred yards of the proposed meeting place it was found that it was occupied by four other meetings and the police informed the organisers of the meeting that there was no room for their meeting and suggested that the procession should disperse forthwith; the procession thereupon dispersed without disorder. When their opponents, who were mostly massed at the junction of Tottenham High Road,


and West Green Road, discovered that the procession had already dispersed, they diverted their animosity on the police. Milk bottles, lumps of concrete, clods of earth, hurricane lamps and in fact any available missile were hurled by the crowd and in each case the target was the police. Attempts were also made to interfere with the mounted police by throwing marbles and ball bearings on the road. A further nine arrests were made by the police at this stage.
During the course of the afternoon 10 police were injured, but fortunately none of the injuries were serious. So far as the police are aware, no personal injuries were suffered by members of the public, and at no time did the police use or draw their truncheons. About 400 police were employed in keeping order.
The Commissioner of Police informs me that as a result of this experience he is of opinion that the powers conferred on him by subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Public Order Act, are not sufficient to enable him in present circumstances to prevent serious public disorder being occasioned by the holding of political processions in the Metropolitan Police district and has sought my consent to the making of an order prohibiting all public processions of a political character in his district for a period of three months. I have given my consent and the order will be made forthwith. I regret that it is necessary to take this step but it is intolerable that the streets of our Metropolis should be made a battle ground for opposing factions.

Captain Crookshank: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will express to the police, on behalf of us all, our sympathy with them in the difficult position in which they were placed yesterday. May I ask, first, whether the order to which he referred has to be brought before the House, or whether it is merely an executive act, and, secondly, am I right in understanding from the description the right hon. Gentleman has given us of yesterday's events, that in point of fact the organisers of the demonstration carried out to the full all the instructions the police gave them and that the disturbances were due to what the right hon. Gentleman called "their opponents," which I assume to be the Communist Party?

Mr. Ede: With regard to the first part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's question, the Commissioner makes the order and submits it to me for confirmation. I do not think it has to be brought before the House; it certainly was not on the three previous occasions on which I was responsible. The organisers of the meeting carried out to the full every instruction given to them by the police. The trouble was caused by the people who were opposed to the holding of the procession.

Mr. H. Hynd: Has the Home Secretary's attention been called to the flouting of the law about the wearing of political uniforms yesterday? Also, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his description of this as a political procession, because no bona fide political party marches through the streets and provokes disturbances, but the Fascists do?

Mr. Ede: I have been informed that there were four boys, the eldest of whom was 17, who were wearing the same coloured blouses in the band that accompanied this procession. As soon as the police drew the attention of the organisers to the fact that this might be construed as a uniform, the blouses were taken off. I think the police were justified in that action, because it might be regarded as an effort to start the wearing of uniforms, and I do not think the police are to be criticised for what they did in this matter at all. My hon. Friend asked whether this was a political procession. It was a procession organised by people who have a political aim and I think it comes within the definition that the Commissioner of Police uses.

Brigadier Medlicott: Having regard to the grim history of political processions, is it not a fact that the mere organising of these processions is in itself provocative, and would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman to take such powers as are necessary to bring this order into operation for longer than three months, so that we shall not have a recurrence of these situations?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I cannot bring it into operation for longer than three months. That is the maximum limit prescribed by the law. Political processions have taken place in this country for a very great number of years and it is to be regretted that two alien organisations


coming into conflict on this matter should make one of the traditional ways of expressing public opinion in this matter intolerable to their fellow citizens.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a certain euphemistic approach in his answer? May I ask him, as the nation is proud of its support of the Charter of Human Rights, whether the time has not come for this country to ban political parties which have racial hatred as part of their creed?

Mr. Ede: I did not think there was any euphemism in the statement I made. I endeavoured to make it as colourless and factual as I could. I hope it may be possible in the not distant future to regain the tolerance for which this country was famed.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is it not a fact that, in spite of the provocation and the way in which they were assaulted, the police behaved in an exemplary manner yesterday, and can the right hon. Gentleman give the approximate cost to the police of looking after these hooligans? Also, were any police officers called from leave specially and if so, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that they shall not suffer, but shall be granted time off in due course?

Mr. Ede: I think that, in face of the very great provocation at the end of these proceedings, the police behaved with their usual tact and even courtesy. If anybody has lost leave, or lost his day of rest, I am quite sure that that will be looked after. I cannot give the exact cost of this without notice.

Mr. Piratin: Why did not the Home Secretary tell the House this afternoon that, prior to the demonstration on Sunday, he received a deputation from the foremost public citizens of a number of East London boroughs, including a number of Members of Parliament, some of whom are present this afternoon? Why did he not tell the House that these people tried to draw attention to the fact that there was widespread opposition to this demonstration taking place yesterday, and, as a Labour Home Secretary, why did he not act on the advice of these well-intentioned East London citizens?

Mr. Ede: I have two public duties to perform which, to my mind, are equal in importance. The first is to preserve order and the second is to maintain the traditional liberties of the subjects of this country. The balance between the two is often very difficult to determine and I regret that, for the purpose of maintaining order, I have, for the time being, to suspend some of the liberties that have been anciently enjoyed in this country. I think it is regrettable that there should have been no effort made by people who were capable of using their influence to restrain the hooliganism on this occasion.

Mr. Marlowe: It has been stated in the Press that some of these disturbers of the peace climbed on to buses and stopped them and deflated their tyres. Can the right hon. Gentleman make any statement to confirm that?

Mr. Ede: No. The police reports I have read do not confirm the deflation of tyres, but there is a mention of some people climbing on to buses.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the mayors of the boroughs concerned who came to see him were of opinion that this procession was intended to be a provocation and nothing else? Can he also say whether the political aim—to which he referred—which those in the procession wished to further, was the same political aim which this country spent six years of warfare to prevent and which has brought Europe down in blood and ruin?

Mr. Ede: The people who attended at the Home Office did regard the procession as a provocation, but I think that in this country we have to learn both to hear and to see things with which we do not agree, without feeling that we have been unduly provoked. This country spent six years in order to combat Fascism, but it did not spend six years in order to establish Communism.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the statement of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and its implications, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that when people carry such things as marbles and steel ball bearings the implication is that that is aimed at mounted persons and, as there were no mounted persons in the procession, it must have been primarily aimed at the police?

Mr. McGovern: Is it not the case that there is a very small body of opinion in this country in favour of Sir Oswald Mosley and that if those who are opposed to him would allow him to demonstrate, it would be found that he has little or no support here, and that the only support he gets is because of the opposition and the methods they adopt towards him? Is my right hon. Friend aware that we had the same experience in Glasgow among religious gangs and that when people paid no attention to them, there was no provocation and the whole thing died a natural death?

Mr. Ede: The history of the last 12 months indicates that the meetings called by the Union Movement are very sparsely attended. On this occasion, it does not appear that there were more than 150 supporters of the movement present at any one time, and if their opponents did not turn up and make the meetings interesting to sightseers, I think they would soon die a natural death.

Mr. Bramall: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are many people who are by no means Communists but who are very violently opposed to this movement, and that it is extremely difficult for them to hear tolerantly people who appear to support the open advocacy of the murder of a very large number of British citizens?

Mr. H. Strauss: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he thinks of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) that those who threw marbles and ball bearings were demonstrating their belief in human rights?

Mr. Ede: I do not think that it is necessary to say anything on that.

Mr. S. Silverman: Might I ask my right hon. Friend whether the latter part of his answer to my supplementary question was intended to indicate that in his

opinion the only objection to the procession in this part of London came from the Communists and whether, if that is his view, that was the view expressed to him by the mayors of the boroughs concerned?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. They did not express their views as to what were the opinions of the people who were opposed to the processions. All the evidence that we have, including our inquiries into the antecedents of the persons who from time to time are arrested in these matters, indicates that the opposition comes from one particular party.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out that this country dislikes both these organisations equally and that the one thing 'they both require is advertisement, which is just what they are getting today?

Mr. James Glanville: Is it not a fact that the police anticipated trouble, otherwise there would not have been 400 policemen there, and if they anticipated trouble why was the procession ever allowed to take place at all? Also, in view of the fact that we spent six years trying to fight Fascism, why should we allow it to be recognised? Why not kill it at once?

Mr. Ede: The police frequently anticipate that there will be trouble. It is their duty to take such steps as they can to prevent it without the undue use of force. I believe on this occasion they discharged their duties properly, and I think also that it is wise on their part to ask for a fresh order to be made so as to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the near future.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That this day, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1949–50— REPORT [8th March]

VOTE A. NUMBERS

Resolution reported:
That 153,000 Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and the Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service together with 1,400 Royal Marine Police borne on the books at the Royal Marine Divisions, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

3.54 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It is somewhat difficult to open this Debate, for two reasons. The first is that neither the Parliamentary Secretary nor the Civil Lord has seen fit to open it. That might have provided more ground for the many answers which were required as a result of the Committee stage and which have not yet been given. Secondly, whereas an overall view is allowed on the Committee stage of all the Votes, that is not the position now. We must confine ourselves to the Votes actually under discussion. That makes it difficult to produce logical arguments in sequence. Just as one wishes to make a point, one finds that it goes outside one of the Votes.
Before I come to some of the points which the Civil Lord left unanswered, there are one or two minor matters upon which I wish to ask questions of the Parliamentary Secretary. On Vote 4 of the Estimate, quite a new officer has been included. He is someone described as a "temporary narrator." I am extremely intrigued to know what a temporary narrator is. As far as I know, it is the first time that that term has appeared in Navy Estimates. A temporary narrator apparently is on the non-industrial civilian staff. I know that in days of old it was the custom to have bards who

attended courts and told stories of the victories of fighting men. If either the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister of Defence have now come to the level of a mere temporary narrator instead of a bard, that is something for which we ought to be sorry. I hope that there is some deeper and finer purpose behind the introduction of this officer than would appear on the surface.
During the Debate last week much was said about the improvement of barracks. For my part, I cannot help feeling that too little was said about too big a subject. It is true that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) proposed many improvements. It is true that those points were taken up later. But as far as I can see from the Debate, the only concrete answer from the Admiralty was that the Royal Naval Barracks at Chatham and the Royal Marine Barracks at Deal were now in course of reconstruction and that it was hoped that the Royal Naval Barracks at Plymouth and those at Portsmouth would be subject to reconstruction during the coming financial year. That is a very little offer to make towards solving this great problem.
I can remember how, two years ago, the Parliamentary Secretary, standing at that Box, made it clear once again that Tory misrule was to be made up for in a grand surge of Socialist enterprise. All these evil conditions were to be washed away, and conditions of the Navy were to be something for which the Navy had always striven and never achieved. If ever a big mountain was in labour and such a tiny mouse was delivered, this was the occasion. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary of what he said two years ago. One of the worst barracks, the Stonehouse Barracks of the Royal Marines at Plymouth, were to have priority for rebuilding, according to the Civil Lord. That project has not even been included in the Estimates. It was easy enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to stand at that Box and to claim that he was ushering in a new age. If he really was doing that, he should be able to tell us in succeeding years that he has achieved something worthy of the promises made. He has been unable to do that on this question.
I come to the provision of married quarters. It is interesting to read the comments in column 1142 of the OFFICIAL


REPORT of the Civil Lord who gave figures of what has been achieved. I cannot understand hon. Members opposite being proud about what has been done. He said that 133 married quarters had been made available for officers and 131 for ratings. Then he said that 570 married quarters for ratings might be made available this year. That gives a grand total of 834 married quarters. What is that for a total serving strength—I am speaking about continual service only—of 140,000? What breach does that make in the problem? The Civil Lord continued by saying:
We were held up for a little with regard to plans for naval officers' houses because at one time we were limited to a certain floor area. We have, however, gone very actively into the question, and we are hopeful that in the next financial year something quite good can be done for officers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 1142.]
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that never has anything been said which was more inconclusive or less liable to any concrete interpretation. What was the factor that held up the Admiralty in providing married quarters for officers? What was this floor limitation and who went into it? And when did they go into it? And how long is it to be before they will have found a solution for it? Particularly would I ask if, when he says, "in the next financial year," does he mean the year 1949–50 or 1950–51? In the context it is readable either way. I want an assurance from him that it means that in this current financial year we are now discussing we shall have some improvement in this respect.

Commander Pursey: May I respectfully—

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: No, the hon. and gallant Member has had his turn.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a few questions about pay? That was rather a thorny subject during the Committee stage, and the Minister of Defence interrupted one of my hon. and gallant Friends by saying that the Navy pay code has never been higher. I think that is true so far as actual money is concerned, but it certainly is not true as far as the value of money is concerned. Nor is it true when one is, trying to make an appreciation of what one wants a

pay code to mean to one of the Armed Services; an increased amount to be the reward of initiative or merit. Never has there been a pay code which took so little into account either as to the real value of money or the real value of men. That is the criticism we wish to make. The Parliamentary Secretary would be hard put to it to say that the pay code in the Navy is equal to the cost of living, or alternatively that the existing pay code has kept up with what people in civilian life can expect to get for equal effort.
Does any hon. Member of this House expect that we shall get recruitment for the Navy or the type of recruits we want unless we are prepared to offer pay and conditions of service that are at least equivalent to what can be obtained in civilian life?

Mr. Paget: We are getting it.

Colonel-Crosthwaite Eyre: The hon. and learned Member may disagree, but the whole of my argument was designed to show that that was the last thing we are getting. Every increase in the pay code has been made at the expense of the efficient and merely lifts up the bottom ranks in the Navy without making any additional incentive for those who may wish to make the Navy their career and by their career their living. If the Minister of Defence or the Parliamentary Secretary require any additional proof of that they have it in the re-engagement figures. Why are the re-engagement figures so low? It is not because in the last few years people have suddenly decided that they do not like the Navy. It is simply because they cannot afford to remain in the Navy, particularly if they are married and trying to bring up a family and to exist on the rates of pay which their enthusiasm and length of service will bring for them.
Another question which was completely ignored in the last Debate was that raised by two hon. Members opposite regarding dockyard development. Apparently there are large areas which are scheduled to be taken over by the dockyards for extension purposes. As I understand it, these areas are to be taken over under the Town and Country Planning Act. No decision has yet been made about them.


What will happen is that at some future date an order will be made under the Town and Country Planning Act which will designate this land. It is at present apparently covered by houses occupied by people engaged in the dockyards, and also by a large number of bomb-damaged houses. The people living in the area are to have no remedy whatever against the action of the Admiralty. If it had been done under the Defence Regulations the Admiralty would have had to pay the moment they scheduled this land, but by doing it under the Town and Country Planning Act they may give a purely statutory declaration that they will want the land at some time. It will then be left for an unknown number of years–5 years or 10 years or whatever it may be—before the Admiralty will implement that order and allow either the owners of bombed-out property to obtain their compensation or those now living in the area even to start to have a claim to get other accommodation.
It seems to me a most iniquitous thing for any Government Department to take advantage of the Town and Country Planning Act—which was designed for many purposes but certainly not that—and to use it to give them an overall claim on land which at the moment is occupied by homes of many people and above all, the damged property of bombed out families. These people are being told in effect, "We are going to take this land for some future use. We shall not tell you when or how; you cannot get any compensation; you cannot put your names down for other houses because no one knows when this is going to happen. We are going to keep you in suspense." Of all the points that arose during the last Debate that was the most worthy of objection.
My main subject and the one in which I am directly interested is the Royal Marines. I looked through the Debate and I found an extract from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) in which he complained that the Parliamentary Secretary had spend 45 seconds last year and two minutes 10 seconds this year on the Fleet Air Arm. May I congratulate my hon. Friend on being lucky; because for the second year in succession the Royal Marines were not mentioned at all. I cannot understand why it is that the Parliamentary Secre-

tary and the Civil Lord—I should have thought he would have known better—made no reference to the Royal Marines, unless they are specifically asked. They always ignore them and leave them out. That is particularly to be deprecated since of all the branches of the Royal Navy there is none that has received a greater increase in their tasks since the war than the Royal Marines.
Before the war their job was to provide detachments for his Majesty's ships. They had one main turret and a part in the secondary armaments. They had to provide a shore landing party if it was needed to maintain order in port, and, sometimes raiding parties to capture Chinese pirates, or something of that nature. But their main job and, so far as hon. Members in this House were concerned, their sole job, was to provide detachments for His Majesty's ships. Now, in addition to that and many increased duties in His Majesty's ships such as being the people concerned with radar, they have been made solely responsible for Commandos and responsible for landing craft—two very great additions. They are two additions which might amount to the difference between victory and defeat in a great many operations that this country might be called upon to carry out if, alas, another war ever occurred.
What has happened? Even before the war, with their limited duties, they were given an arbitrary scale of one in ten of naval personnel. How that original percentage arose I have no idea. I do not know whether it dates back to Nelson or Drake, or where it comes from. There has never been any explanation given in this House. If it was necessary to have a percentage of 10 per cent. for the duties they did before, how much more is it necessary to have a bigger percentage now? And with all these duties to do how can the Marines afford a 7 per cent. cut in their continuous Service personnel? I should like to know how the Parliamentary Secretary tries to justify those figures.
I wish to ask him why he made no reference whatever to what the Royal Marine Commandos have done in the Mediterranean? He thought it fit to say something about his joy at arriving on time in one of His Majesty's ships. I have not been to sea much but I shudder to think what would happen to me as a Royal


Marine if through any fault of mine one of His Majesty's ships arrived a minute before time. Those who have been in His Majesty's ships would agree with me that far from the hon. Gentleman's experience being a matter of surprise, it would be a matter of surprise if anything else happened. It seems to me that a matter for surprise here is that this Royal Marine Commando Brigade, which is a new departure, was completely ignored by the Parliamentary Secretary. [Interruption.] The Minister of Defence indicates that there is a single sentence in the statement published with these Estimates; but how little does it convey? How much do we not owe to the Royal Marine Commandos for what they did in Palestine? Did they not cover the retreat, were they not the last people off and were they not asked at the last minute to undertake this engagement? One single sentence from the Government Front Bench is not a tribute which should have been expected.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say something of the further call which is being made on the Royal Marines today at Akaba? I hope I shall not stray outside the rules of Order if I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can give me an assurance that these Royal Marine Commandos have every piece of equipment which would enable them to do their job? I think I am right in saying that that is so, but I should like, as I am certain all those in the Royal Marines would like, a further assurance on that point today.
I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a further question. We have now some 14,000 people in the Royal Marines. How is that 14,000 split up? How many of these Royal Marines are supposed to be in detachments afloat, how many in the Commandos and how many are supposed to be dealing with landing craft. It is true that at the moment we have fewer capital ships so that probably the immediate commitments for that particular branch of their Service is less, but that must certainly be far more than outweighed by the requirements for Commandos. The real sufferers at the moment seem to me to be those dealing with the landing craft aspect of the duties of the Royal Marines. That is the least immediate of the needs but it is possible that

it will be the most immediate in the case of emergency. I should like to hear something about the numbers available for that aspect of their duties, and particularly what numbers of landing craft we have available at the moment.
The Royal Marines, like the Royal Navy, depend chiefly for their appeal for recruits upon the fact that they enable people to go to sea. What is the percentage of Royal Marines who can expect to go to sea at the moment? I think I am right in saying that the ratio is not more than one in four. If that is so, surely the Admiralty ought to take hasty steps to increase that percentage. If they leave the ratio at one in four they are destroying the main basis for which the Royal Marines were intended.
If I understand these commitments aright, I want to ask what is the minimum continuous service intake which the Royal Marines must have? I suggest that the figure must be in the neighbourhood of 2,000 to 2,500 a year. How many are they getting at the moment? If my information is correct they are 25 per cent. under their minimum requirements. I should again like to emphasise that it is no use giving a corps like the Royal Marines vastly extended responsibilities unless at the same time they.can obtain the intake which will alone enable them to carry out those responsibilities. It may be true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) said, the fact that the National Serviceman will now serve for 18 months instead of 12, will enable him to be of use to the Navy instead of a liability. I very much doubt whether 18 months is sufficient to teach a Royal Marine any one of the specialised jobs which he has to undertake. I can see that there are many general service branches in the Navy in which that would be possible, but it would be unwise to assume that the National Serviceman after 18 months will be of any real value to the Royal Marines in an emergency.
All my criticisms on Vote A so far as the Royal Marines are concerned can be summed up in the simple statement that whereas time and time again in the last few years their duties have been extended they have never had an opportunity to extend their ability to make known their requirements. Two years ago I asked the Parliamentary Secretary


whether the time had not come to put a member of the Royal Marines on the Board of Admiralty. I ask him that question again tonight. He answered me two years ago by saying that the Board of Admiralty were conservative and took a long time to think about anything, and that I could not expect him to answer that question in the course of one short afternoon. He has had two years in which to think about it and I hope that he will be able this afternoon to give me the results of his deliberations. I do not ask that the Commandant-General of Marines should be on the Board of Admiralty. It would be impossible to have the executive head of the Royal Marines on the Board, but it would be possible to have another Marine of general rank on the Board to see that these various duties were properly made known to those in charge.
Looking at the whole of our naval service we have in these times to try to make up our minds whether the Government have safeguarded the interests of the Navy, and whether they have made proper plans to meet any emergency in the future. I must admit that I was horrified when I heard the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) say that we must go into battle unprepared, a statement which was echoed by another hon. Member opposite. It may be that in some future war, as has happened in the past, the Army or the Air Force will be given time for consolidation; there may be a "phoney" war. But in all wars that have ever occurred in which this country has been involved the one Service which has never had a "phoney" war has been the Navy. They have had to be on the spot, deployed from the moment we declared war. We can take no chances; we must see that the Estimates are sufficient to cover the duties which devolve on the Navy. It is for that reason that I am very unhappy that we have had no information on the Committee stage, nor any reassurances which would alone be able to satisfy us that we can deploy and maintain the role of the Navy. Unless the Parliamentary Secretary can give us more information this afternoon I shall remain unconvinced. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can do so because if the Navy be unprepared and unable to fulfil its traditional task of being deployed fight-

ing fit the moment war is declared, then indeed ours will be a sorry fate.

4.19 p.m.

Commander Pursey: The hon. and gallant Member has covered a great deal of ground, mainly by means of questions to the Admiralty, and it is not my purpose to follow him in all the ramifications of his queries. I make no criticism on that aspect of the hon. and gallant Member's speech; it is his job, although he has been concerned to paint an unnecessarily gloomy picture of the Navy today. As I previously said, leaving out of consideration the United States, we are in a position relatively and actually, as compared with any possible enemy, better than we have ever been in before in our long history as a maritime nation.
I want to take up one or two points which the hon. and gallant Gentleman dealt with. First, there is the question of barracks. We are continually getting this argument from the Opposition about barracks. They tell us that the barracks are over half-a-century old. The time to have renovated them was between the wars, when we had between two and three million unemployed, unlimited materials and when the money could have been voted for the purpose.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Under a Socialist Administration.

Commander Pursey: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that I do not give way to him, but I did on the last occassion, and if he has anything sensible to contribute to the Debate, I am quite prepared to give way to him now. On the other hand, I am quite prepared to go on, despite the guerrilla warfare, because that will not worry me. But there is a time limit, so I hope that I shall not be interrupted unduly with nonsense. The position about barracks so far as the Conservative Government is concerned is the same as it is about everything. The hon. Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) has complained about the Labour Party's theme song, but the Conservative Party had no complaint about the barracks and had no theme song, so that there is no use in my wasting time on that point. I was in the Service then, and at that time the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite was non est. Apparently, the significance of


that is taken up by former naval officers opposite who were also in the Service.
Now I come to the second point about married quarters. We never heard anything from the Conservative Government about married quarters, because they never did anything about it. [Interruption.] It is no good going on with the guerrilla warfare. I am prepared to say that we never heard anything from the Conservative Party before the war on the subject of married quarters because that matter did not concern them at all, and if anyone wants to challenge me on that point, I will sit down immediately. I get no takers. All right. Before the war, the only married quarters provided were those for officers and ratings on foreign stations in shore establishments, and, at home, for the limited number of officers and ratings who were on what was known as the compensation and lodging basis, because they could not be accommodated either in the ships or in the barracks. I am prepared to give way if anyone will take me up on that.
The question of building married quarters for officers and ratings is an entirely new aspect of naval policy adopted for the first time by the Socialist Government. There is no challenge again, so that it is arrant nonsense for people to make these statements. Moreover, the hon. and gallant Gentleman could not even be fair in the figures he quoted. I am not challenging his figures, but he used the figure of 834—I do not want to quote him wrongly—for a strength of 130,000 or 133,000—

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: 140,000.

Commander Pursey: Why pick upon that idiotic figure, when over half the personnel are unmarried and not interested in houses? Obviously, the larger number in the Service are in the junior ranks and they are unmarried, and it therefore presents an entirely false picture to compare the houses with the total strength, when the majority of the men are unmarried and not interested. In addition to that, a large number of the married men in the Royal Navy do not want to live in the ports. They live in their own towns and villages and are not interested in this question of houses for naval personnel. The question of the provision of houses for the men in the Service

is one for the Minister of Health, and he is doing more about that than anyone else has ever done.
This picture of housing for the Services is an entirely false one. I am all for houses being produced in the ports for the men in the Service who want to live there, but it is the responsibility of the local authorities. Commanders-in-chief have stated, as one did last week at Portsmouth, that the local authority, and I believe he was referring to Portsmouth, was doing the Navy well for housing, so that the Opposition have got nothing on the Admiralty so far as housing is concerned.
I come to the question of pay. What is the good of hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite talking all this nonsense about pay? They just do not know what the pay was. I do. I had it—6d. a day as a boy, and, as a fully-qualified able seaman, 1s. 8d.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I had Is. 6d. as a midshipman.

Commander Pursey: You were only worth half that. In fact, if I were asked how you got into the Navy at all, I should say you only got in as a consolation prize.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman keeps saying "you," and he is thus addressing me and not the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite.

Commander Pursey: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I naturally would not suggest that you were only worth a consolation prize. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked for it, and, if he asks for any more, he will get it.
The pay of the Royal Navy remained static for 50 years, and Conservative and Liberal Governments were not interested at all. It was fixed when continuous service was introduced after the Crimean and Baltic wars of 1854, and it remained static for over half a century. Today, hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite have the cheek to argue that pay has not been increased. I am not going to waste any more time on that point, except to say that pay today is better, actually and relatively, for the majority of the Navy—[Interruption.] Let me finish what I am saying, and the hon. Member will know. It is a fairy story which they have been putting over. The trouble today is that, with officers in particular, the messing


and other expenses need to be cut down. We have got more married officers today with their wives chasing the Fleet than ever there were before. That is the problem, and good luck to them, because I did it myself when I was in the Service. I went about with my wife, and I expected to foot the bill.
If the naval officer needs to improve his financial position, he should cut down his mess expenses, his wine bills, his dance expenses, his unnecessary travelling expenses and his motor car expenses. There are more of them today running motor cars than ever there were before, so what nonsense it is to say that they have no money. Obviously, they are spending their money in other ways.

Mr. Boothby: Mr. Boothby (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Eastern) rose—

Commander Pursey: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman, who does not usually take part in Navy Debates; I am not answering any questions about fish.
I come to the final point with which I wish to deal and which was mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre). It concerns the Royal Marines. There is not justification at all for a marine to be on the Board of Admiralty. There are any number of branches in the Services, many of which may well have a claim to be represented on the Board of Admiralty, but they certainly do not include the Marines. After spending a considerable amount of time talking about the Royal Marines, there was one thing which the hon. and gallant Gentleman omitted, and in which I thought he would have been interested. He said that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty spent a long time on the Estimates and mentioned nothing about the Marines. But one thing which the hon. and gallant Member himself did not mention, and never has mentioned, is the question of promotion from the ranks to commissioned rank in the Royal Navy. The present system of promotion is a disgrace to the Service. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would interest himself in that matter, he would get more recruits for the Royal Marines, because there would be greater inducements and it would be a Service more attractive to recruits.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre rose—

Commander Pursey: The hon. and gallant Gentleman refused to give way to me, but I am quite prepared to give way to him.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way. I only want to ask him whether he is aware that in the Royal Marines we have had for a long time a very good and worth-while system of promotion from the lower deck which has worked very well? We have now a large percentage of officers in the Royal Marines who have come from the lower deck, and they have done very well indeed.

Commander Pursey: The number of promotions under what we understand as the lower deck promotion scheme—equivalent to the sub-lieutenant scheme —has been very small indeed. The figures since 1939 are not readily accessible, but previous to that year the number was one and two per year.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Since then?

Commander Pursey: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to improve recruitment to the Royal Marines, let him go into the question of promotion from the ranks and make the Royal Marines more attractive as a career.
My purpose this afternoon is to deal with another subject, a new one raised by the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech on the Navy Estimates a fortnight ago. As the only Member of this House who has served as a Naval warrant officer, I wish to make the most vehement protest on behalf of naval warrant officers at the announcement about the new titles for their ranks made by the Parliamentary Secretary on 8th March. In doing so I wish wholeheartedly to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland) who is unable to be present this afternoon, and whose speech was reported in the following day's OFFICIAL REPORT because he spoke late at night.
As the House is aware from speeches made on the Navy Estimates over the last four years and from numerous Questions asked during that time, the warrant officers of the Navy have been striving for a long time for the abolition of warrant rank as such because of its invidious


and unnecessary distinction from other officers. Their main requests have included: (1) improved status consistent with their rank; (2) a change of title to something more suitable; (3) abolition of a separate warrant officers' mess. With others I have advocated this long overdue reform, and from time to time have made practical suggestions to this end. In fact, the Admiralty appointed a special committee under Admiral Sir Percy Noble to go into the whole question, but this House has never been given any information about the report of that committee. A year ago, however, the Admiralty announced that the warrant officers' mess was to be abolished, and that, in future, warrant officers would live in the commissioned officers' mess.
I wish to give the Admiralty full marks for that decision because it was an important one and one which no Board of Admiralty except the present one would be likely to have accepted. The hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) laughs and nods his head. He has always opposed such reforms, so naturally he would not approve of a progressive effort such as this. The Board of Admiralty would certainly not have made the reform had they been advised by such people as the hon. and gallant Member who has always vigorously opposed these reforms in order to keep the warrant officers in their place as different from commissioned officers.

Captain Marsden: I have frequently been the shipmate of warrant officers and they have been the best of messmates. If I suggest that they are more comfortable by remaining in their own mess, I am only thinking of their comfort.

Commander Pursey: If the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to say so, the warrant officers can look after their own comfort and prefer to say what they desire rather than rely on the misrepresentation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
A fortnight ago the Parliamentary Secretary said that in future all warrant officers would be appointed by commission and not by warrant. I admit quite frankly that is another important decision to the advantage of the warrant officers. In fact, the two most important

of the three reforms to which I have referred have been granted. As a result, warrant officers will in future live in the commissioned officers' mess, and will also be appointed by commission. In other words, they will be practically commissioned officers in all respects. Therefore, all that was left to do was to find a suitable set of titles fit for their new status whereby they would be merged with the other officers and not singled out because of their lower-deck origin with the distinctive mark of Cain. This, however, was too much for the Admiralty. They could not stay the whole course of reform, and, having surmounted two obstacles, they got ditched at the last hedge over the question of titles.
In his previous speech, the Parliamentary Secretary said that at present these officers bore titles describing the duties they performed as well as indicating rank. He gave examples, such as "warrant ordnance officer" and "commissioned warrant ordnance officer." He said that in future the word "commissioned" would be substituted for the word "warrant" and that the word "senior" would be added for the senior officer. What nonsense. We now have to omit the word "warrant" and have such titles as "commissioned ordnance officer" and "senior commissioned ordnance officer. "What has happened is that the Admiralty mountain has laboured for three years—more than sufficient time in which to produce an elephant—and has produced only a mouse. Consequently, at official functions these officers will be announced as "Senior Commissioned Ordnance Officer Jellicoe" and "Senior Commissioned Boatswain Beatty." Even the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey—and I say this to his credit—opposed this idea and suggested a title with a branch letter. But he wanted a distinctive title, to which the officers strenuously object.
This question of titles has now become quite farcical, and even Gilbert and Sullivan could not have improved upon it and made it more ludicrous. All these officers are to be commissioned officers. Why label only some of them as such? Is the idea that whereas in the past we spoke of officers and warrant officers, we are now going to refer to officers and commissioned officers in order to denote the distinction? The solution was so


simple and obvious. All other commissioned officers have the title of sub-lieutenant, except the late entries who joined as lieutenant. These titles should have been given to warrant officers, with a letter to show the branch to which they belong, such as "G" for gunner in the same way as for the "pukka" officer. The problem cannot be regarded as solved until this proposal is conceded, and the warrant officers and their advocates will go on to strive for this goal until it is achieved.
There are two other points about which no announcement has been made: distinction lace on uniform, and pensions. Is the new commissioned gunner to wear the thin gold lace stripe of the previous warrant officer? The stripe for a commissioned officer has always been the normal thick stripe, and as the future officer will be a commissioned officer he should wear the same thick stripe; otherwise the thin stripe will continue to be the brand of Cain. As regards pensions I am informed, and I believe it to be correct—the Parliamentary Secretary can correct me if I am wrong—that the commissioned officer has only to serve one year in any rank to become entitled to the pension of that rank. On the other hand, the lieutenant promoted from commissioned gunner has to complete two years in that rank before being entitled to a lieutenant's pension. If this is correct, now that the ranker officers are to be promoted to commissioned officers, even if only pseudo-commissioned officers, the pensions regulations should be the same for both types of officers. They should get the same advantage as the more fortunate entries who started as officers much earlier and who get much higher pensions.
These matters are rather technical and they may not be of particular interest to the House. They are, however, of vital importance to the officers and to the Service. Although there are new schemes of early promotion from the lower deck to commissioned ranks, the old warrant officer avenue is still the main one to the quarterdeck for the majority who join on the lower deck. The flag rank in a naval career from the lower deck is, therefore, a lieutenancy, but an officer does not achieve this distinction, which a pukka officer gets at 23, until he is 48 or 49 years of age. By this time he has one foot on a bar of "purser's soap" and the other one

on the retired list, as he is retired at 50. Surely, therefore, he should be allowed to count the last year of his service for pension in the rank which is held, instead of having to count it in the rank which he previously held, and thereby be on a par with the cadet entry officer.
These matters are of vital importance today because of the effect on the all-important problem of recruiting. By and large, the Navy is able to get the recruits which it requires, other than in the technical branches, but obviously anyone considering joining the Navy considers the possible careers, emoluments, pensions and so on. When such a person finds that it is possible to get the two stripes of the long and zealous service lieutenancy but not to get the pension, he is very concerned about it because it is not fair play. The warrant officers appreciate and are grateful for the reforms which have been made by this Board of Admiralty, but they say, and I support them—and I hope we shall get support from the other side of the House—that the Admiralty should go the whole hog and clear away all these distinctions which the warrant officers still have to tolerate, and make them fully commissioned officers.
The hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey, who I am sorry to see has left, has paid a tribute to this branch. I hope someone else on the benches opposite will support me in my argument that if these officers are to be commissioned officers and are to live in the commissioned officers' mess there should be no distinction at all. Give them the same gold lace on their arms as the commissioned officers. Give them similar titles to the commissioned officers. Give them the same pensions regulations, and then it will be a more attractive, happier and even more efficient branch of the Navy of which it has always been the backbone.

4.46 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: As I propose to speak for only a few minutes, I shall not answer the points which were made by the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey). However, perhaps I might suggest an appropriate epitaph for him—though long may the necessity for it be delayed: "What Nonsense!"
I propose to deal with the question of Regular personnel recruitment and the


wastage, which is of the utmost importance. The total for this year is to be 153,000 of which the net number is 145,000. A year ago it was 144,000 which contained 114,000 Regular personnel. On 1st January this year there were 144,000 of which the Regular personnel numbered 117,500. That means that in nine months there was an increase of only 3,500 which cannot be regarded as satisfactory. During the Debate the Parliamentary Secretary told the House that during the past year we had accepted 19,700 Regulars. He drew attention to the high proportion of wastage and he said, as an example, that the number of those who had to be discharged from the Service on account of that terrible disease, tuberculosis, had increased from two per thousand to seven per thousand. If my arithmetic is right, that merely means that the wastage due to that disease was.7 per cent.
It would have been much more to the point if the Parliamentary Secretary had referred to the wastage of some 16,000 chiefly due to those who are not prepared to re-engage at the end of their first period of service. That is a very distressing fact. It is one which must cause the Admiralty grave concern, because those men, having spent 12 years in the Service, have had all the training that was necessary to make them efficient, not only as seamen but as gunnery, torpedo and signals ratings and so on, and they would be lost to the Service. The reason can only be that they are not satisfied with the conditions of service offered to them. The rate of re-engagement has decreased from some 60 per cent. before the war to less than 30 per cent. Only half as many men are satisfied to re-engage for pension.
The Admiralty must take some definite action in this matter. I think we all realise that to maintain an efficient Naval Service we must have the maximum of Regular personnel and as few conscripts as possible. But with an enormous wastage and a net intake of 3,500 Regular personnel, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get back to our reliance upon Regulars for the Service. I ask the Government, therefore, not only to consider this matter—no doubt they are considering it very closely—but to make up their minds as quickly as

possible as to what difference they can make in the Service so that these men may be attracted to sign on for extended service for their pensions. We do not wish to lose these men; we wish to retain them. They are the highest trained men we have.
Apart from the conditions of service, there is also the question whether the length of time for which they engage should be reduced and whether they should go on step by step, as has been suggested. That should be taken into consideration. I have always very much doubted whether it was a good thing for the whole of the non-substantive pay in the Service to be abolished so that a man received nothing more for being a high gunner rating, a high torpedo rating or any other specialist of that kind. That was all, abolished. There was no inducement for a man to take on additional responsibility and to work extremely hard as he would have to. The highest gunner and torpedo ratings are very skilled men and we cannot afford to lose them. In my opinion there should be an attraction in the way of additional pay in this respect. I wonder whether the Admiralty are satisfied that the abolition of pay for the non-substantive rating has been a good thing. I hope the matter will be reconsidered.
In view of what I have said, I suggest that at the present time we are not getting value for the money which the Navy is costing the country. I hope the Admiralty will not only seriously consider improvements in the attractiveness of the Service but will come to a decision on the point in order that we may return to the position of the old days when we had an entirely voluntary Regular Service.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I think the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) has touched on a matter of the utmost concern to anybody who considers the well-being of the Royal Navy—that is, the enormous wastage of manpower as a result of men leaving the Navy at the end of their 12 years' service instead of signing on for an additional ten years. It must be borne in mind that these men are exceedingly valuable. They are trained men; they are in the prime of life, able to give of their best to the


Navy. Yet at present they are drifting out at the rate of some 75 out of every 100. Why is that? There must be reasons why a man who has completed 12 years is not prepared to sign on for a shorter period in order to complete his time for pension, in many cases at 40 years of age.
I should like to consider some of the reasons which occur to me for this wastage. We had the revised rates of pay issued just before Christmas and in them, I think, the Government tried to do something worth while. Their action was in accordance with ideas which I and other hon. Members put forward in previous Debates. The intention was to give an incentive to people to take higher ranks. But this increase in pay is not really so good as it appears at first sight. At the end of the war many men were in receipt of war payments which brought their total payments up above the level at that time. When the 1946 pay code was introduced, their rate of pay was reduced but they were given a war excess in order to keep it at the previous level. Now that the new scale has been introduced, however, instead of getting the full benefit of it they get only a matter of a shilling or two of it, because they lose their war excess payment.
I have a case here of a chief engine room artificer with three children. At the end of the war he received 17s. 6d. a day. Under the 1946 pay code he received 16s. 5d. a day with, of course, war excess to keep it up to 17s. 6d. Under the new code, which was heralded as being a great achievement, he receives 18s. 2d. a day. In other words, his net increase is really 8d. a day. His marriage allowance, which in 1945 was 62s. a week, was reduced under the new pay code of 1946 so that, including family allowance, he received 52s. 6d. and, under the new code altogether, he receives 62s. 6d.—that is, 6d. more than he received in 1945. That is no inducement to a man to stay in the Service and it explodes the idea that the new pay code settles all the problems in the Service.
With the change in the status of the warrant officer rank, we must recognise that in the Royal Navy the pay, marriage allowance, pension and relative rank of the highest non-commissioned officer is

two stages below the rank of the highest non-commissioned officer in the Army or in the Air Force. That is a very serious matter and it is causing a great deal of concern among chief petty officers in the Royal Navy. I do not know what is to be done, but might I ask whether the time has not arrived for consideration of the introduction of two classes of chief petty officer—first class and second class? I understand that that scheme has been adopted in the Canadian Navy. It would encourage a man who attained the rank to chief petty officer before the end of his 12 years' service to stay on for another ten years if he thought he would gain an additional rank and, of course, the extra pay that went with it.
The next point with which I want to deal is the very vexed question of promotion, and here I would refer mainly to the engine room artificer branches. In reply to a Question I asked in the House some time ago I was informed that whilst in 1947 eight engine room artificers were promoted to acting sub-lieutenants (E), only three were appointed last year. That is not good enough. Of engine room artificer apprentices, two were appointed to cadet (E) in 1947 and three in 1948. I looked up the pamphlet dealing with engine room artificer apprentices and in it they talk in terms of a dozen being promoted to cadet (E) each year. That is not happening today. That year the Estimates provided for an increased bearing of commissioned and subordinate officers in The engineering branches. I ask my hon. Friend to consider seriously the provision of more and greater opportunities for the promotion of men to commissioned rank.
There are a large number of other factors, of course, and probably my hon. Friend may be aware of some of them. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary paid a visit to H.M.S. "Vanguard" just before Christmas. I understand he was informed by petty officers and chief petty officers of what their grumbles were; after which he asked how many would take their tickets rather than go on the Royal tour, and he received the rather astonishing answer that 90 per cent. would sooner take their tickets than go on the Royal tour. I see my hon. Friend is shaking his head, but my information is to that effect. That indicates that there are causes for complaint. The bathroom accommodation was not good


enough; the mess itself, in which 41 men had to sleep, was not good enough; the chief petty officers were not even provided with proper locker accommodation —in the show ship of the British Navy. There are a number of other reasons, of course, why this general discontent prevailed.
I believe the Government have tried honestly and sincerely to give the men of the Navy a fair deal, but they have not been able to do so. In my opinion the reason is, that they have never taken the men of the Navy into their confidence. After the first World War the conditions of pay were settled by the Jerram Committee, which consulted with every branch of the Navy in determining the rates of pay. The men had a much greater opportunity of presenting their grievances after the first World war than they have today. I put it to my hon. Friend that if he wants to get down to the solution of the problems concerning the men of the lower deck, he must consult with the representatives of the lower deck to learn where the shoe is pinching most.
I have had a fairly long experience of the men of the lower deck, both in the Navy and outside it, working with those men. I have always found that the men of the Navy are prepared to face up to their responsibilities in a proper manner. I am quite confident that they would be prepared to act in that manner if they were taken more into the confidence of the people who are trying to arrange things to better them. I do suggest to my hon. Friend that he gives this matter serious thought if he wants to solve the problem of enticing men to stay in the Navy. I believe this: the man who leaves the Navy because he is discontented is the worst recruiting sergeant we could possibly have.

5.4 p.m.

Sir Ronald Ross: I agree with a good deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis), but I do not propose to follow him along the lines on which he was speaking, except to say that we must not forget one thing at present, and that is, the enormous complements there are in warships nowadays, brought about by air power, because a

modern ship, large or small, has to be provided with a very large number of close range anti-aircraft weapons, all of which require men to work them. That necessity has inflated the complements of ships to a size almost unthought of in the old days, and we now have to fit a quart into a pint pot, because the ships have not increased in size to anything like the same extent proportionately as their crews.
Now I want to pass on to what is always of interest to people, and that is a mystery. The mystery in the present case is that of the Admiralty Office. In the good old days the Admiralty Office was a comparatively cheap institution. At one time it cost less than £1,000,000 a year, and quite shortly before the war it cost only £1,500,000. Now it is rapidly overtaking naval armaments. The cost is going up. The extraordinary thing about the increase in the cost of the Admiralty Office is how little it accords with the announcement of the Admiralty on these Naval Estimates. In the Admiralty statement explanatory of the Estimate, we are told that the number of staff at Admiralty Headquarters was 11,990 on 1st January, 1949—a reduction of 660 in the size of the staff on the previous year.
At the same time the cost of that Office has shot up by a very substantial amount. There is a further increase in Vote 12, and the Admiralty Office, moreover, is included in the Supplementary Estimate. How is it that fewer people are costing more to the extent of nearly £500,000? We are quite accustomed to the phenomenon that, as the Fleet becomes smaller, the Admiralty Office becomes larger, but the complementary situation, that as the number of people employed in the Admiralty becomes smaller, toe cost becomes larger, is a rather strange one. It is not for the pay of naval officers. The increase in the number of officers in the Admiralty Office is comparatively small.
What is the explanation of this? By Report stage one hoped that Ministers at the Admiralty would have taken some note of what was said on the Motion that Mr. Speaker should leave the Chair and looked into the matters then raised. I hope that, perhaps, the Parliamentary Secretary is hearing some words of wisdom at the moment, from the previous


holder of the high office of First Lord of the Admiralty, as to why the Admiralty Office is costing so much money and why that cost is increasing. I think it is important that we should be told.
Is there any provision for research in this Vote and if so, where is it stated? I hear rumours that research is being reduced. I should like a specific statement whether that is so or not, because this is certainly the worst time in the world to think of reducing that. No one will wait with greater interest than I to hear the explanation of why a reduction of 660 in the staff involves an increase of £500,000 in the cost. On the question of research I should like to ask about H.M.S. "Research." There are two ways in which the Navy and the Merchant Navy show their unity—their essential unity. One is through the Royal Naval Reserve. The other is in the fact that the Royal Navy, in peace as in war, has for one of its functions the safe navigation and conduct of merchant ships throughout the world. H.M.S. "Research" was a very special vessel for inquiring into questions connected with the magnetic field, and was constructed specially of non-magnetic substances. She was well on the way to completion, but the work was stopped during the war. That was fair enough, but nothing has been done since. What is the policy of the Admiralty as regards H.M.S. "Research"? It was for a valuable purpose. Why has she not been completed? What is the cost of the outstanding work that has to be done on H.M.S. "Research"? It is very important that the Navy should not in any way scamp or diminish the work which they do directly for the assistance of the Merchant Navy.
The third point which affects me more than any of the others, concerns what, I think, is a real scandal in Admiralty administration. I have drawn attention again and again to the fact that the Admiralty in Northern Ireland, where the National Service Acts did not apply, have constantly scorned the rights of ex-Service men. They do not attempt to give them any precedence or priority over those of military age who did not volunteer, and they have gone further than that—they prefer the non-ex-Service men. The Civil Lord said the other day that they had done a tremendous lot for the ex-Service man, and I took note of that

statement. I brought up a particular case of which I can be quite sure of the facts, and I put a Question to the Civil Lord. I always had great hopes of the Civil Lord until he came to deal with this Question because we honour him for having served in the Navy for a long period, and I thought that he was a man who would have some sympathy with the ex-Service man wishing to get employment. It would appear, however, that the Civil Lord, when he left the lower deck, left his sympathy for the ex-Service man at the same time. I do not say this lightly; it has taken quite a long time to convince me of the complacency of the Admiralty over this matter.
The case which I have mentioned occurred at Toome airfield, which has been taken over by the Admiralty and which is Admiralty property. Two men were required for work which did not involve any great skill. The employment exchange were asked by the foreman to send two men along. The official at the employment exchange very properly sent two ex-Service men—two men whom I defy the Civil Lord to find were unsuitable for the job for which they were sent. They arrived at the aerodrome, where they saw the foreman. The foreman would not employ them. He knew that they were ex-Service men, and I think that there is little doubt that he did not employ them because they were ex-Service men. He said that their names had not been down on an Admiralty list for a fortnight, or some quite ridiculous and fantastic story of that nature. He sent them away, and he then proceeded to recruit two men, who, I think, had not been sent by the employment exchange, and who certainly were not ex-Service men. He took them on instead of the two men who had served their country, one of whom had served it at sea.
The Civil Lord, when he answered my Quesion, gave an answer which was no doubt supplied to him. I do not blame him for that, but I do blame him for not inquiring into the matter. For what reason were they considered not to be suitable? The suitability in the case of one man who was taken on was I think, that he was a personal friend of the foreman, and in the case of the other that he was the foreman's brother. Neither had served in the Armed Forces of the Crown, whereas the two ex-Service men were


sent back to the employment exchange. This is the Admiralty as an employer. This is the Government who are calling on private employers to make sacrifices by encouraging men to serve in the Auxiliary Services and the Territorial Army and who are asked to make up the difference in pay which they get while with those Services and what they would get if they stayed at work. This kind of behaviour by the Admiralty as an employer is killing recruiting. The Admiralty are too complacent to make any inquiry or serious investigation into what is going on. The case which I have given can be verified, if necessary by affidavit.
It is not the only case. It is notorious that in Northern Ireland the ex-Service man is suffering and not getting employment, and the man who is being taken into employment is the man who did not volunteer to serve his country. I think that this is a disgrace, and I should be interested to hear what steps the Admiralty are going to take about this case. I hope that they will do something to rub out this stigma which, I think, this kind of action by the Admiralty is placing upon the Royal Navy. I resent very much that there should be this utter failure to try to give ex-Service men a fair deal.

5.17 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): I am sorry to interrupt the discussion on this subject, but in view of the fact that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reply at the end of the Debate, I think that it is best for me to deal with the particular point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross). I am very sorry that I have not pleased him since I have held my office. I do not expect to please everybody, and sometimes, from the point of view of being a Member of the Government, it may be just as well not to please hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Londonderry. I am of the opinion that this cheap publicity which the hon. Gentleman is trying to get every time the Admiralty is mentioned with regard to the employment of ex-Service men in Northern Ireland is most unjustified. The policy of the Admiralty today in Northern Ireland is even better, so far as the employment of ex-Service men is concerned, than under any previous Government.

Sir R. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman, instead of making offensive and personal attacks on a matter which has been represented to me by the British Legion and other bodies in Northern Ireland, would answer the concrete case which I have put to him, it would make a bit more sense.

Commander Pursey: Why the British Legion? It has nothing to do with them.

Mr. Edwards: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman cannot take it. He likes to give a lot from all angles, but he does not like getting it back himself. Can he tell me when a Tory Government gave preference of employment to ex-Service men in Northern Ireland, all things being equal?

Sir R. Ross: Give me notice of that question and I will.

Mr. Edwards: The position today is that instructions to employing bodies in Northern Ireland are that ex-Service men are to get preference of employment, all things being equal.

Sir R. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire into this specific case and have a proper inquiry made by some responsible person, and will he also inquire why these instructions are completely flouted?

Mr. Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman and I are to keep bobbing up and down, we shall take a long time. I am going to explain the situation of these two men. Two casual workers were required by the Admiralty. The Admiralty sent to the employment exchange, and four men were sent along—two were ex-Service men and two were not. By Admiralty regulations, the men on the spot are instructed to give preference to ex-Service men if they think that the men are suitable. Every employing Department in the Government has to leave it to the men on the spot to see that those they engage are suitable. The man on the spot in this case decided that the two men who had not been in the Services were the most suitable for the two jobs. Why is all this hullabaloo being created over two casual jobs which are now defunct? The two men who were employed are no longer in those jobs.
It might interest the hon. Member to be able to inform the British Legion in Northern Ireland that no less than 60 per cent. of the men employed in the Works Department in this area of Northern Ireland are ex-Service men. It is sought to


create the impression that ex-Service men are badly treated, but I maintain that they are being treated far better than they ever have been; and, whatever the hon. Member may say, we shall go on treating them in the fairest possible way, all things being equal.

Sir R. Ross: The Civil Lord has admitted that two non-ex-Service men were employed in preference to two ex-Service men. That is only one instance out of many.

Mr. Edwards: I have said that the people on the spot decided that the two men who had not any service were most suitable for the job. That is always the test.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: I hesitate to do anything to lower the temperature of the Debate which has just been going on, particularly as I am by no means certain whether, in accordance with the Ruling given by the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey), I am eligible to speak in this Debate. He was rather firm with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who was not, he asserted, a suitable person to take part in this Debate. I hope that I may get past that barrier on the ground that, while I have not had the honour of serving in the Navy, I have for some years taken a very keen interest in the relationship of the Navy to the Merchant Marine, in both war and peace, and I have a fairly close connection with the Merchant Marine.

Commander Pursey: We must get this right on the record. I do not object to the speakers; that has nothing to do with me. My point was that, in view of the number of interruptions and the number of Members who wanted to speak, I was not prepared to give way to an hon. Gentleman whose contribution could only be irrelevant to a technical subject. I am more than glad that we should have the contribution of the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) who is representing the vast party of which he is an honoured member.

Mr. Maclay: With that welcome I can continue at ease.
It was in, I think, 1946 that I first raised in this House on the Navy Estimates the question of the availability of

escorts, and I was very delighted when in 1948 the Civil Lord answered that question which I had asked in 1946. It was very handsome of him to give a duly deliberative reply. I am still more delighted that this year the subject of anti-submarine warfare and the availability of escorts for convoys, by aircraft and other means, has been fully dealt with by both Front Benches. I sincerely hope that the same attention will continue to be given to that subject indefinitely into the future, so that never again shall we be caught short on that all-important part of our defence ability —as, quite frankly, we were caught short very seriously in 1939, in spite of the lessons of the 1914–18 war.
There is one aspect of co-operation with the Merchant Marine in war, which has been just touched on in the general Debate on the Navy Estimates, but which has not been answered as far as I can find out, which I should like to raise definitely this evening. I refer to navalair co-operation, and to the question whether there is any link between the training of the Naval Air Force and the Merchant Marine. There is provision in the Estimates for members of the Navy to attend courses at Royal Air Force establishments, and I should very much like to know if any members of the Merchant Marine or the Royal Naval Reserve have ever been in any of these courses. It is very regrettable that the R.N.R. should not yet have been properly re-established. It is most vital, particularly in these years, that the great experience of wartime co-operation between the Navy and the Merchant Navy should not be wasted.
I hope we shall get something more definite than we have been given so far by the Under-Secretary of State for Air on the closeness of co-operation on antisubmarine work and convoying. We know that there are courses attended by members of both Services; but does that work go on at the top level, the medium level, or the working level? I do not yet know the answer. That subject received only 10 lines in the OFFICIAL REPORT, although it surely must be of immense importance, bearing in mind the increasing speed of the submarine and the other matters which were discussed earlier. It is essential that some of those responsible for handling the Merchant Navy at sea should be brought in; that they should be learning how the


developments are progressing, and giving the benefit of their experience in the problems of convoy work from the merchant ship side, making certain that the very best general advice is given and experience gained in developing new techniques.
That leads me to discuss the development of the autogyro or helicopter; I never remember which it is, but I know that one is better than the other. It is common knowledge that during the war there were experiments with the helicopter, and I should like to know whether that would properly come under the Admiralty or the Air Force; whether it is a Coastal Command or a Navy job; and, if so, whether the subject is being examined. There are two possible uses: first, the straight detection of submarines; and secondly, as the development of that type of aircraft continues it may prove to be a greater weight lifter than at present, in which case there are obvious uses to which it could be put in the defence of convoys and merchant ships.
That is an extremely important factor, yet at the moment we simply do not know who is responsible, or whether the experience gained during the war in this field—admittedly on the other side of the Atlantic—is being studied. At that time it never reached the stage of practical use, to the best of my knowledge, but it is clearly valuable to be able to take a hovering plane and carry it with the convoy on a merchant ship for use in certain, if not all, weather conditions for submarine detection or attack. This may be a very amateur way of dealing with the subject, and there are probably experts here who know a lot more about it; but it has not yet been mentioned, and I hope we shall be told whether that aspect is being dealt with.
Finally, might we be informed about the intake of fishermen into the Navy to do their National Service? I have had to deal with quite fantastic cases of boys who have been at sea from the age of 14 for one or two years, who have taken 50-ft. fishing boats out to sea under their own command for short periods, who have had to go into the Army to do their National Service because they were told they could not be taken into the Navy. Grave dangers attach to that. To begin with, it is most disheartening for a boy

who is keen on the sea to be forced away from it to do his National Service. In taking a boy of that age away from the sea to another kind of life there is always the risk that he may drift away from fishing. Fortunately, that has not happened in East Scotland after this war; it has been most encouraging to see how men serving in Forces other than the Navy during the war have returned to the sea. That certainly was not the case in many areas after the 1914–18 war. I know that some time ago the Navy was taking no National Service entrants at all; they were giving all their places to long-service men. I sincerely hope that that difficulty has now been overcome, and that we shall be told something about it.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I have risen to suggest that today all these Estimates are obsolete. Since they came out we have had the Atlantic Pact which puts the whole defence picture into a different frame. If the Atlantic Pact is to work at all, it must work as a single co-ordinated defence. It cannot work as a number of independent and overlapping defences run by various countries. A system of that sort will either fall apart under pressure or will impose an impossible burden upon the economies of the various countries concerned. The Minister of Defence must work out how equipment can be standardised with that of America and eliminate overlapping. We should think out this problem not as two independent forces in one sea but in terms of a single defence force for the Atlantic.
I also ask the Minister to consider very seriously the question of the various arms and the contribution they have to make to this common defence. Now that we have the Atlantic Pact these Navy Estimates seem to be quite disproportionately large. They are utterly disproportionate to the other Services. There is a surface sea defence job to be done. We must weigh up its size, look at the joint navies of Britain and America, and ask whether they are enough for the job, or whether they are not in fact miles too large for that job. If that is so, we should divert that expenditure to the air and land where we are obviously falling short of our needs. We need some of the cruisers for peace-time functions, such as incidents like Malaya and the Falkland


Islands, and there is perhaps a case for maintaining one battleship. Beyond that, the joint surface forces available are far larger than the task.
I would also ask the Minister of Defence seriously to consider whether there is a case for a fleet air arm. In that which I referred to as the only possible war, it is pretty unlikely that we shall want to fly aeroplanes off ships at all. There is the Norwegian passage, but that is only of value while we have Norwegian aerodromes, and because we have Norwegian aerodromes, it is a.job that can be done more effectively by land based aircraft. Britain is the intersecting base from the point of view of air in the Atlantic. It may be that we shall find, because surprising things happen in wars, that there is a use for carrier-borne aircraft, but the fact remains that there are so many other things in respect of which we know there will be a use and a desperate shortage. In these circumstances, can we afford expenditure on mere possibilities particularly when we know these things are in huge supply in America and are immediately available?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that there is a very reliable report by the political correspondent of one of the Scottish papers which shows that the United States Government have asked our Government to increase their defence Estimates?

Mr. Paget: I can well imagine that the United States Government have done that, although I do not know it to be a fact. I am certain that they have not asked us to increase the surface Fleet or the Fleet Air Arm. There are many branches in which we are desperately short, particularly in the case of our fighter forces and in the armour of the Army. These are things that are most urgently and certainly required. I am speaking all the time of the relative needs of this country. We cannot have all that we should like, and we can never have what is really adequate. We have to choose between what is most urgent and what is less urgent. In the light of the Atlantic Pact, many of the things we are asking for in these Navy Estimates are obviously less urgent than the things we lack under the other two Estimates.
I seriously ask the Minister of Defence to reconsider what can be saved in these

Estimates in the light of the Atlantic Pact and also what must be expanded in the light of that Pact. Both of these things have to be done. For instance, it seems to me that the amount of personnel in the Navy is disproportionate to the share of the sea function left to us to perform in the Atlantic. It may be that there is a very strong case for forming Naval divisions. We have had Naval divisions before. What is wanted is divisions not battleships. There is no likelihood of anyone wanting to use a battleship. There may be a strong case for keeping the Fleet Air Arm personnel together—they have a wonderful morale—but they should be organised as land squadrons to do the land fighter job as part of Fighter Command.
We should leave to the Americans those jobs for which they have the arms and men available and concentrate on the jobs that we must do ourselves if Europe is to be held. That is what we have to do if the Atlantic Pact is to be a reality. All these Estimates are designed on the old idea of an unintegrated defence of Britain. For Parliamentary reasons, we have to have these Estimates a certain time before the Budget, but I urge the Ministers concerned to regard them as provisional and not to hesitate to change them around as any new situation demands.

5.39 p.m.

Captain Marsden: I do not dissent from very much that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said. We certainly need a joint defence if the Atlantic Pact is to be effective. One of the underlying motives of the Atlantic Pact is that we should be able to reduce the money that is being spent, always bearing in mind that the security of those within the Pact is the first consideration. I would point out, however, that apart from the United States there is no country which will be of much help to us so far as the sea is concerned. I do not suppose that the Admiralty rely on a single ship from any other country. We have to keep up our Navy because the United States would not think very much of us if we told them that we do not need a large fleet because they have the biggest navy in the world. On the contrary, I think that reaction would be very objectionable indeed. The more we keep up our Services and prepare to do our share in


mutual defence, the more likely are we to have effective assistance from our friends on the other side of the Atlantic.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) refer to merchant shipping defence, a question with which I have had a lot to do. We have asked about it and have been told nothing. We have put Questions down and have had very polite but uninformative answers telling us the usual story—that the matter was under consideration, or was in hand, or something of that sort. I know there is a shipping defence advisory committee—if that is the exact title—of shipowners and the Admiralty, but what results they have arrived at or what plans they have made for the future, we have not been able to ascertain. I would like to hear something about this from the Parliamentary Secretary. I want to see for every merchant ship, blueprints showing what the gun positions would be if war was declared and the ship was likely to be in a danger area. We are not told about this despite the lessons of the last war, when we learned that even if the various stiffenings and positions were not embodied in new construction, at least plans were prepared to show how guns were to be fitted when required.
Running through this Debate and others on naval affairs what has been insisted upon by everybody is the necessity for getting satisfactory replies to questions about arrangements made for training. We have been given vague and "airy fairy" answers which might have forced us to the conclusion that no arrangements had been made at all. May I make a suggestion? We have all sorts of different entrants into the Navy—the Fleet Reserve, the Royal Naval Reserve, the R.N.V.R. and the Sea Cadets. I should like to see all these forms of training under one head, with the same establishment, the same instructors and the same equipment. I am sure that this would be of considerable benefit. Unfortunately, Sea Cadets have to struggle along with antiquated boats which they can hardly keep afloat, antiquated weapons and with very much retired instructors. They do the best they can. We do not want from the Admiralty a promise that more will be done in the dim and distant future; we

would like to hear that prompt action will be taken to train and to continue to train the Navy's Reserves.
It is rather a temptation for one who has closely followed naval affairs for so long to comment on practically every page of the Estimates, but I shall confine myself to just a few. Page 170 refers to canteens. This strikes me particularly hard, in view of the Debate here last Thursday on catering for the House. The Explanatory Note on the subject points out that canteens are normally operated by the Admiralty under the management of the Controller of Canteens, and then says:
The general principle upon which these canteens are operated is that, taken as a group, they shall neither make profit nor incur loss after meeting running costs which include goods used, salaries and wages of canteen staff, maintenance and replacement of loose equipment….
On the left hand side of the page I find that everybody is paid, although that is not supposed to be according to the Explanatory Note. There are catering managers, manageresses, a vast staff and national insurance schemes. I have no doubt that that is necessary, and that it is found that industrial concerns provide the greater part of the staff and equipment of the canteens. I see an item "Provisions, stores and other running expenses, £533,000." The total Estimate for canteens next year is £781,000, as against £618,400 for 1948–49. Considering that the general purpose of a canteen, apart from certain things which are provided, is to buy and sell provisions. I think that needs some explanation.
I refer now to the swollen size of the Admiralty—the number of people in the Admiralty and the money necessary for its provision. I have noticed that establishments of one man and a secretary have been set up, and that the following year and years after there has been an increased growth. There is no stopping it. Page 188 refers to the "Office of the senior psychologist." I suppose he started in a small room by himself. Now he has gone ahead a little, and the Estimate has risen from £9,295 to £11,496 for 1949–50. I do not believe that anybody—at least, I do not—knows why a psychologist is necessary in the Navy. I believe that the best psychologist for stokers is the chief stoker and, for marines, the sergeant-major. I wonder if a psychologist is employed


before the Government make their appointments to the Front Bench, and elsewhere. I am sure that the psychologist referred to on page 188 has not so much to do that he could not spare a little time. Last year there were 12 clerical staff and four psychologists. This year there will be only nine clerical staff, but six psychologists. I presume that some of the clerical staff have been promoted to be psychologists. There is an Estimate of over £4,000 for six psychologists in this office. That is an example of an office which starts in a small way and grows.
Next, there is the Department of the Director of Naval Training which everybody wants to see strengthened. The Vote in this case is £2,000 less for next year than this year. It is all very strange, and I hope we shall have some explanation. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to drive it home to the Board of Admiralty. We are very much concerned about the training arrangements for Reserves who come in from all parts of the country, and we ask that adequate facilities should be afforded for that training.

5.49 p.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I am relieved that the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) did not do as he said he was tempted to do—comment upon the Estimates page by page. As it is, it will take me rather longer than I expected to answer some of the interesting points which have been raised. The hon. and gallant Member should be glad to know that the amounts of money for training has been reduced. One of the criticisms of the Opposition last year was that so many men were employed at shore training establishments and so few at sea. We have managed to train a large number of men, and some of our shore training commitments have been reduced. That. I think, is an improvement. With regard to psychologists, one of the jobs they do in all the three Services is to see that as far as possible the right people are put in the right jobs.

Captain Marsden: How far in the senior ranks does that go?

Mr. Dugdale: If the implication is, does it include the Government, the answer is that the Government are not being ap-

pointed as the result of the advice of psychologists, but I have no doubt that if they were on the job the psychologists would bear out the excellence of the appointments made to the Government.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) talked about warrant officers, and I am glad that he is pleased about two out of the three things we have done. To satisfy my hon. Friend is something of which the Admiralty may well be proud. He asked whether these officers were going to have thick or thin stripes. The position is roughly that there will be no change. One will have thick stripes as now, and the others will have thin stripes. He asked about their pension rates. They will remain unchanged. There is one very important point in that connection however. At present all officers up to and including Vice Admiral serve two years before qualifying for the pension of that rank. The new branch officer will do the same. The Admiralty will adjust the promotion dates so that any branch officer promoted to lieutenant will have two years' service before he retires. Therefore, he will be eligible for the pension of that rank. We attach some importance to that.
I turn next to the point raised by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross). He asked about the Admiralty Office costs, and wanted to know why they were higher. There are various reasons for that, but two will be enough to go on with. The first is that among those costs are those of naval officers, and their marriage allowances were raised this year. We also find that those who have been discharged included a number of temporary employees who were on relatively low grades of pay, so though a number of lower grades have been discharged and there are fewer people, they are employed at higher rates owing to the increase granted to the particular people who are serving.
The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) referred to the Marines. It is all very well to talk about the Marines not being mentioned in these Debates. He would be the first to agree that it would be quite ridiculous if I made a speech entirely composed of references to section after section of the Navy. Obviously that cannot be done. There are people throughout the Navy


who should be praised and I praised one or two last year and others in other years. The Marines were mentioned not only in my noble Friend's explanatory statement, but in the White Paper issued by the Minister of Defence. On both occasions they were praised, and I am glad that I can take this opportunity of repeating what was said then, that we attach a very high value to the Marines and we have great admiration for their work. We realise the extremely important part they play in naval affairs.
The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) and the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey referred to anti-submarine work and the question of co-operation with the Merchant Navy. We are co-operating as far as we can. I shall not go into great details, but I am glad that this point has been mentioned and we will see that co-operation will continue as far as possible on all levels. The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs also asked about helicopters. He may have seen that we have a small number in the Navy. Recently there was a rather spectacular landing by a helicopter on the flag-ship of the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleet. It took mails to the Commander-in-Chief and landed on board ship. We attach importance to helicopters and we are developing them surely if slowly. They will play their part in our work in the future.
Remarks dealing with conditions in the Service were made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) who mentioned the question of re-engagements. They said they were not happy about the re-engagement rates, and that very little was being done to encourage re-engagements. One of the things that has been done is that we have increased the pay of just those ratings who are most affected by re-engagements. The pay of petty officers and higher grades has been increased. Last autumn they received those increases and we hope that there will be some improvement in the re-engagement rates as a result. I should like to take up here a statement he made which is not in accordance with the facts. He said that when I was aboard H.M.S. "Vanguard" 90 per cent.

of the petty officers said that they would not go on the Royal tour if they got a chance to get out. That is not so, but if they had said it, it would, in fact, be a very remarkable tribute to conditions outside the Navy which are conditions of full employment. They would not have said anything like that before the war.

Mr. William Teeling: Who said it?

Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Member for North Edinburgh.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this question of re-engagements, is he prepared to give the assurance which was asked for not only today but during the Debate on the Navy Estimates and also in another place, that the Government will reconsider the American system of granting re-engagement on from two years upwards? That might have some effect.

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly; we will consider it. I cannot say anything more at the moment. We are concerned to see that we get the greatest number of engagements that we can.
On the question of improvements to barracks, I should like to reply to the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch. He said that he was very disappointed in the amount of improvements carried out, particularly in barracks, and he complained that the only improvements done were at Chatham and that there were none at Devonport. He argued that these were the facts in spite of the assurance given by my hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty that the Marine Barracks at Portsmouth would be improved forthwith. I am assured by my hon. Friend the Civil Lord that he said nothing of the kind.
On the general question of improvement, my noble Friend is making plans for the improvement of these barracks, but he is faced with conditions that have been allowed to exist year upon year for 10, 20 and 30 years. They are conditions which are a disgrace for any previous Government to have permitted. I do not mind how many times that is repeated, because it is a fact. It is


all very well for hon. Members opposite to come here and ask why has not such and such a scheme been undertaken. They should look at the records and find out the kind of conditions they allowed in housing and in married quarters in barracks. The conditions today are no worse than the conditions which have been left to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to clear up, but that is saying a great deal.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the speech that he made three years ago, in which he promised that these conditions would be improved. Whilst he may like to make party capital out of his statement, what we want to know is how much has he done to fulfil that promise?

Mr. Dugdak: A very great deal has been done. It is being done in the barracks at Chatham, to mention just one point. It is the first time that the ratings there have ever been allowed to eat and sleep in separate quarters. It was always thought good enough by previous Governments that they should eat and sleep in the same quarters.
With regard to married quarters, what is the position? It is that we are building married quarters, not as quickly as we should like, certainly, but we are building them infinitely more quickly than they were ever built before. There were no ratings married quarters before. That point makes it very difficult for hon. Members opposite to press home with very great force any suggestion that the Government are doing very little today to help forward the welfare of our sailors.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: In regard to the ratings married quarters, is it not the case that in the old days the ratings went to sea?

Mr. Dugdale: No doubt that may seem to the hon. and gallant Gentleman a very comical observation, but I would remind him that the figures for those at sea in proportion to those on shore are after subtracting new commitments roughly the same as they were when the Leader of the Opposition was in the Government shortly after the last war, at a comparable time to this. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better think again.
Married quarters were mentioned, but one other improvement has been made and I cannot let this afternoon go without referring to it once again. It is important that it should be mentioned although I mentioned it in my Estimates speech. Many sailors, in spite of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman implied, go to sea. They want the best conditions in the ships in which they serve. In the past they did not have those conditions, but today the conditions are being very rapidly improved in one way and another. I will not go into details because I described them in my Estimates speech. There are very considerable improvements.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Vice-Admiral Taylor rose—

Mr. Dugdale: I am afraid I cannot give way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Time is short. I should be perfectly willing to give way otherwise, but there are other subjects to be discussed today.
Finally, we come to the question of pay. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch tried to make us believe that the real wages received by sailors are now lower. Is that not what he said? If he did not say so, I am glad to hear it because it means that the hon. and gallant Gentleman believes that real wages are higher today than they were before. The Government have taken great pains to see that the wages of sailors have increased.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misquote me. What I said was that although increases had been made, those increases were not so great as had taken place in other directions, and that the real wages of the sailor were lower than they were before.

Mr. Dugdale: That is what I thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, that the real wages of sailors were less than they were before the war. I dispute that statement. Not only do I do so, but I say that the statement with which he followed it is also inaccurate. He said that not only were the sailors getting less in wages but that we were getting fewer recruits. I can only say that although we should like more recruits—certainly all the Services would like more recruits —we are today getting a higher rate of recruitment than we got in the comparable time after the last war. That is a


very remarkable fact, considering that the conditions of the men who might be joining the Navy are vastly improved above what they were between the wars. They have improved conditions outside, and yet there is a good rate of recruitment into the Navy. I think we need say nothing more than that.

Commander Maitland: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, can he let us know whether he considers the pay of the senior ratings on the lower deck is satisfactory?

Mr. Dugdale: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that we have only recently increased that pay.

Commander Maitland: That is quite true, but is he satisfied?

Mr. Dugdale: It is better than it was. I am satisfied that it is a considerable improvement upon what the men got before the war.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Would the hon. Gentleman do me the courtesy, as I opened the Debate upon this Estimate, to say something more about the point which I raised regarding the duties of the Royal Marines and their numbers?

Mr. Dugdale: I cannot go into more detail now. I referred in some detail to the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I think I referred about as much to his remarks as I did to all the other remarks put together, which shows the importance which I attach to them. I will certainly answer in due course any points on which he wants information about the Royal Marines. In spite of the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman thought that somehow or other we had omitted to mention them, we attach the very greatest importance to their work.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Resolutions reported:

VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES

"That a sum, not exceeding £37,225,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense

of the pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950."

VOTE 2. VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY

"That a sum not exceeding £11,690,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1950."

VOTE 4. CIVILIANS EMPLOYED ON FLEET SERVICES

"That a sum, not exceeding £5,815,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of civilians employed on fleet services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950."

VOTE 10. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND REPAIRS AT HOME AND ABROAD

"That a sum, not exceeding £10,266,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and repairs at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950."

VOTE 11. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES

"That a sum, not exceeding £6,358,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of various miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950."

VOTE 13. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

"That a sum, not exceeding £14,613,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1950."

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1948–49

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949 for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year."

[For details of Vote see the OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 1152.]

Resolutions agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1949–50

[15th March]

VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE

Resolution reported:
That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 255,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

6.8 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: In the Memorandum issued by the Secretary of State for Air in connection with the Air Estimates when they were debated last week, reference was made to the shortage of personnel, in particular skilled personnel, in the Regular Air Force. On the Estimates last week in this House, and also at the beginning of this month in another place, detailed attention was drawn to the shortage of recruits coming forward for the Royal Air Force, to the fact that Halton was only two-thirds full, and that at Cranwell there were vacant places. One of the reasons for the present shortage of skilled men is neglect of the Air Training Corps in 1945 and in succeeding years. Had the same encouragement been given to air training in those years as I believe is being given now and as was given during the war years, we should not be suffering from such a severe shortage as at the present time. After all, the future strength of the Royal Air Force depends to a certain extent upon the interest which the Air Force takes in the training and support of the Air Training Corps from the highest level.
I am glad to know, and I am sure the House is also, of the progress made particularly in gliding which the Under-Secretary announced last week in reply to a question I asked earlier in the Debate. I want to apologise for not having been in my place when the Under-Secretary replied late in the evening, but I was elsewhere on a public engagement. I read with great interest what he had said. In these Estimates what provision is made and what encouragement is being given to the Royal Air Force as a whole to establish gliding clubs at stations and elsewhere? I believe that if every possible encouragement and facility were

given to the Royal Air Force to glide, it would greatly stimulate interest in the Service, improve morale and be of general assistance to the efficiency of the Royal Air Force.
I am not now talking of gliding for training purposes but of gliding as a recreation and a sport. Many power pilots would greatly enjoy it. I can speak from personal experience of gliding over both water and land. There is no greater thrill in the world than to be floating around in the air hoping to catch an up current, without any noise, all by oneself. It is a great thrill and great fun. It would have an advantage for power pilots because meteorological conditions have to be studied, and all air experiences are valuable. I also consider it of great use for ground crews. It would encourage their interest in the air and promote greater co-operation and better feeling between aircrews and ground crews. I should also like to, see opportunities to fly given to members of technical, medical and other branches of the Royal Air Force who would not normally fly, by the formation of Royal Air Force gliding clubs. I hope we may hear from the Under-Secretary that these Estimates contain proper provision for developing what I believe will be of great value in years to come as a sporting and recreational aid to the Royal Air Force.
Turning again to the Air Training Corps, although improvement is taking place I do not think that all which ought to be done is being done to encourage that cadet force. Over the week end I had sent to me the usual annual report of a squadron. The commanding officer's report said:
Only first class and proficient cadets are now permitted to fly (except at annual camp) and this restriction, whilst stimulating the interest of the keener cadets, is often discouraging to the others.
There we have a commanding officer's statement that there is discouragement of the cadets whom we require to make keen to serve not only in the Air Training Corps but in the Royal Air Force when they get older. I hope the Under-Secretary will look into this and see whether the old practice of giving flights to others to encourage keenness and give air experience can be renewed.
During the war in advertising for recruits and in advertising the advantages of joining the Royal Air Force, the


Training Corps was linked with the Royal Air Force on posters and other publicity material. We got that after a great struggle, and it was of advantage to both the Air Training Corps and the Air Force. That is not being done now. Why not? These points may be small, but they indicate the way in which the fullest support is not being given to the Air Training Corps by the Royal Air Force, the Air Ministry and others who could in these various ways show the value and importance they place upon the Air Training Corps as a recruiting ground and as a basis for the future strength and development of the Royal Air Force. Anything that can be done to link the Air Training Corps with the Air Force is of particular value to the cadets.
I have referred to the value of gliding in the Air Training Corps, as the Under-Secretary did in his, observations last week. I have a suggestion which ought to stimulate interest in the Air Training Corps and be a help to the Royal Air Force. I suggest that the most promising and keenest of our cadets who go on solo gliding be given an opportunity to do power flying. This can best be done by much greater support of the flying clubs by the Air Ministry than is now being given. Replying to the Amendment in the Debate last week, the Secretary of State for Air drew attention to the subject of the support of the flying clubs in a way which was rather disheartening. He said:
Another point concerns flying clubs. Of course, the position is not quite so simple as it appears. My difficulty is that a large proportion of the members of most of these flying clubs are well past military age and, therefore, there is no advantage to be gained by the Royal Air Force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March. 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2011.]
If cadets were given flying in the flying clubs right up to the standard where they could get their A licence we should get some absolutely first class material and there would be no such disadvantage as outlined by the Secretary of State. A further advantage of giving help to the flying clubs is that not only can young men be trained to fly but it also gives great practice and encouragement to both instructors and ground crew. The Secretary of State also said:
In addition, we must also maintain an efficient training organisation which, in the

event of war, could rapidly be adjusted to meet the needs of a greatly expanded service." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 1937.]
That was the position in 1939. Owing to the support then given to the flying clubs, among other things, both ground crews and instructors were available for a rapid expansion of the training force. Here is one way in which the important point made by the Secretary of State could be met. Give the cadets this opportunity to go solo on powered aircraft and at the same time provide a valuable reserve of instructors and ground crew. This is what Canada is doing with great success. Why cannot it be done here? It would be an encouragement to cadets and a great advantage to the Royal Air Force. If there is any suggestion of Treasury difficulty, surely we could not have a cheaper insurance or a better way of providing flying training.
In his reply the Under-Secretary referred to the fact that experiments were taking place at Cranwell in connection with gliding. That is to say, certain cadets were to be given an opportunity to glide first and then be power trained after to see what advantage, if any, arose. I know there is considerable controversy on this matter. As far back as 1943, when I was director of the Air Training Corps, I went fully into this subject and arrangements were made that cadets who had gone solo gliding should have their careers followed up to see whether or not any advantage accrued in this way. That was six years ago and, since then, thousands of cadets have gone solo gliding. What has been the result? There ought to be a lot of evidence already available on that question which perhaps could be looked at.
Reference was made last week to the Chipmunk. I beg the Under-Secretary of State to let officers on the flying reserve have an opportunity to fly more advanced aircraft than that. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) suggested that they should be allowed to fly Oxfords or Harvards. Pilots cannot keep their hands in sufficiently on a light aircraft such as the Chipmunk, they cannot do twinengined flying, they cannot do instrument flying and all the other requirements of more advanced flying which are necessary if reservists are to keep their hands in. Therefore this matter should be looked at again.
One of the most valuable ways of increasing keenness in the A.T.C. is by the interchange of cadets with other countries. I was glad to see that there had been an interchange of 25 cadets with Canada. Is there any opportunity of that interchange being extended? For example, can any go to Southern Rhodesia or to South Africa where extensive training is taking place? Australia and New Zealand are rather far, but even if only one or two cadets could go there, it would be a gesture which would be appreciated in the Dominions as well as over here. Again, are any exchanges of cadets taking place with the Benelux countries, with Norway or Denmark? Exchanges of that kind would be invaluable in every way and I hope the Under-Secretary of State can give us some helpful information in that respect. All the ways I have suggested are, I believe, important ways for increasing interest in the A.T.C. and so assisting the Royal Air Force of the future.
It was abundantly clear in the Debates last week, both here and in another place, that the main reason for the shortage of recruits to the R.A.F. is the pay and conditions in the service. When one realises that in the United States of America a 'bus driver gets two and a half to three times the amount of a flight lieutenant in the R.A.F. one feels that there is something wrong somewhere. If we want the strength of the R.A.F. to be as it should be, and if we want the people in it to be really happy and satisfied, something must be done about pay and allowances, particuarly of those ranks of flight lieutenant, squadron leader and wing commander from which the commanding offiers and chiefs of staff are to be drawn.
Believe me, there is real distress there, particularly amongst the married officers. I have two daughters married to serving officers of those ranks and I know, from talks I have with them and their friends, how bitter the wives feel about it. It is an expensive business when Service families are uprooted and posted from here to there and everywhere, and they do not get the allowances they should. There is a lot of additional expense which these families cannot afford. For instance, my own daughter had to take a young baby overseas. She was told that its pram could not be shipped for three or four months, which

meant that she either had to hire or buy a new pram. There are many promising officers, who ought to rise to the highest rank, who are thinking seriously whether they can continue serving in the light of the education of their children and of living conditions. This matter must be looked at in all seriousness. After all, the future of this country depends on the efficiency of the Air Force.
Before the war schoolmasters used to tell me that they never hesitated to recommend their boys to go to Halton for training. They felt it was the finest technical education any lad could have. Any boy going there had great prospects and, if he did not wish to continue permanently in the Service he was magnificently fitted out for civilian life. What has happened? Why is Halton only two-thirds full? Is there a proper liaison between the Air Ministry, the Air Force and schools in this connection? Is there a breakdown there, or is it again the fact that it is now felt that the R.A.F. does not offer those prospects that it held out in pre-war years? If so, something must be done to overcome that.
In reply to a question of mine the Under-Secretary gave some useful and interesting figures about the exchange of officers between the Royal Air Force and the United States. As the House knows, the United States have recently formed a separate Air Force, exactly as we did 30 years ago in 1919. There were many teething and development troubles in its expansion from 1919 and onwards under peacetime conditions. I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State if, in the officers we have exchanged and who are serving with units or on the staff in America, we are satisfied that we have officers who can give information, should it be asked for by the United States, of the difficulties we went through in those days. It may well be that some serious difficulties are facing the United States Air Force in its early days. Also, if officers over there are doing a good job and are asked to remain, is any difficulty put in their way by the Treasury owing to shortage of dollars, or in any other way which prevents those men from continuing in service there? I hope there is not, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman can tell us something more about the liaison between this


country and the United States of America. The people of this country will have a much greater sense of confidence, security and satisfaction in knowing that United States Air Force officers are in this country co-operating with the officers of our own Royal Air Force, that at all levels, from the unit right up to staff rank, we are co-operating, planning and working with them, and that squadrons of the United States Air Force are now in this country.
It became obvious that the outstanding anxiety in the recent Debates, both here and in another place, was the concern about the shortage of Regular airmen. I should like the Under-Secretary to explain exactly what he meant when, in his reply last week, he observed:
No wonder the R.A.F. is over-subscribed and we cannot take anything like the numbers who want to come to US."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2071.]

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): As will be seen from the context, I was referring to the National Service entry who come in each year.

Sir W. Wakefield: I am glad that the Under Secretary has cleared up that important point. Obviously, if publicity were given to that statement many people might think that recruits were no longer wanted for the skilled trades and branches of the Regular Air Force, in which there are obvious vacancies. I hope the points I have raised are such that when the Under Secretary replies he can give us some assurance that steps are being taken along the lines I have indicated to help overcome some of the shortages now existing in the R.A.F., shortages which, for our future security, we simply must not allow to continue.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Warbey: In his survey last week the Secretary of State for Air included a review of some of the peacetime activities of his Department. Unfortunately, he did not find time to deal with one section of his Department which is carrying on an activity of the utmost importance, not only to the R.A.F., but also to a large number of industries and national and international institutions. I refer to the Meteorological Office. Amongst the institutions peculiar to my

constituency are two which happen to be domiciled almost side by side in the neighbourhood of Dunstable; they are, the Whipsnade Zoo and the Central Forecasting Office. Their proximity to each other has no very great significance, but what they do have in common is that in each case their inhabitants have been compulsorily transferred from elsewhere. The inhabitants of Whipsnade Zoo, however, have the advantage of being provided with very commodious and comfortable quarters. That cannot be said, I am afraid, of the inhabitants of the Central Forecasting Office.
Before I say any more about the great inconvenience and discomfort to which its members have been put, I should like to remind the House of the very important work being carried on in the Central Forecasting Office. It is the focal point of a highly intricate and ingenious organisation, which stretches out throughout these islands, across the seas to the little ocean weather ships which are the eyes and ears of the service, and across continents to lands far away. This institution receives from a very large part of the Northern Hemisphere data which it analyses, collates and redistributes by teleprinter, wireless telephony and wireless telegraphy. The analyses, plotted on to weather charts and so on, form the basis of those forecasts which provide indispensible information, not only to airmen, both civil and military, but also to farmers, fishermen, seamen, public transport, private motorists and, indeed, to the ordinary citizen who is bothered about what he shall pack in his case for the week-end.
We often blame the Air Ministry for the inaccuracy of its forecasts, but we should recognise at the same time gut a tremendous amount of skill and organisation goes into the preparation of those forecasts and that if they are not always correct this is due to a number of very variable factors over which human beings have not yet established very much control. I was very glad to note when I recently visited the Central Forecasting Office that its research section was being expanded. I was surprised, however, by the fact that the expansion appeared to be of rather recent origin. In view of the importance of research in meteorological work, I shall be glad to have an assurance from the Under-Secretary that


every effort is being made in its furtherance.
I understand that we are beginning to get a little more information about the way in which the weather is formed. Today, apparently, a great deal depends upon the building up and movement of cold and warm fronts. I learnt that cold fronts, like cold wars, do not come only from the East, but move backwards and forwards regardless of political boundaries, alignments and curtains. This is true not only of the fronts themselves but of the information about them, which moves backwards and forwards without regard to political considerations. There is, for example, a thrice-daily interchange from Dunstable with weather centres in very many parts of the world, including Moscow. The one thing the Russians do not worry about keeping secret is their weather. Perhaps that is because it so big and so obvious.
This meteorological service is an extremely important activity. I suggest that we ought to pay rather more attention than the Air Ministry appears to have been doing to the comfort and wellbeing of the men and women who are engaged on this vital work. They are people who have been uprooted and brought from all over the country. Many of them have been shifted many times. Because very few of them lived originally in the neighbourhood where they are now situated, they do not possess the residential qualifications which enable them to secure priority positions on local housing lists.
They are faced with a tremendous housing problem. I have letters from many of them which give a heartrending account of the great inconveniences to which they are put. One family, for example, are living in a disused windmill and others are in very overcrowded conditions. Many families are quite separated and have been separated for years because the men are not able to bring their families to live with them. I feel that something more might be done by the Ministry to provide proper housing conditions for this staff. They are civilian staff, it is true, and the Secretary of State rightly pointed out last week that civilians are not subject to military discipline, and that there are various inconveniences in Service life to which

these men are not subject. Yet, if one goes into their history, one finds that in many cases they have been just as much uprooted as Service personnel. They have moved as many as eight to 10 times in some individual cases.
They have not very much option about their job. It is a job they enjoy doing and they do not want to change, but if they did, meteorological technicians would probably find considerable difficulty in obtaining other employment. I suggest that there is a responsibility which the Ministry ought to accept for seeing that proper housing accommodation is provided for these men and I would like the Under-Secretary to tell us if he can give an assurance that something will be done for them. I know it is not only a problem for his Department, but a problem of a more general character. I should be out of Order if I referred to it in general terms, but I ask that in this case an assurance might be given that something will be done for them.
I understand that it is not likely that Dunstable will remain the Government home of the Central Forecasting Office but that in a few years' time these people may have to move again. Is it possible to give some indication when they are likely to have to move? How long are they to be allowed to make some temporary settlement in their present location? Two or three of them, because they cannot get properly housed in any other way, are buying their own homes. What is to happen to them if in a few years' time they are moved again to another part of the country? Will they receive any compensation if in the course of two or three years the value of their capital investment has considerably fallen? Will they receive very generous personal grants to enable them to make good their financial loss? Can the Under-Secretary give some indication how long they are likely to stay where they are, so that they can have some basis on which they can work in determining how to look after the comfort of their families?

6.44 p.m.

Sir Peter Macdonald: The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) has expressed concern about a very important branch of the Service, the meteorological service. Although


that is a civilian branch of the Service, it is vital to the organisation of the Royal Air Force and I fully endorse his anxiety about the housing conditions in that ancillary service.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in the Debate on the Navy Estimates said that he thought that as a result of the Atlantic Pact, about to be signed, those Estimates were out of date today. There is a great deal to be said perhaps for that, but certainly not so far as the Air Estimates are concerned. Considering the magnitude of the American Navy there is a great deal which can be done almost immediately in the way of integration in the Services and co-ordination of the Services. But, in regard to the Air Force, I am convinced that if that ever takes place—and I hope it will take place—it will be a considerable time hence and we in this country cannot afford to relax in our efforts to build up a strong Air Force, a striking and fighting force, at the earliest possible moment.
One thing which emerged from the Debate last week and from the Debate today is that, in spite of the optimism expressed by the Secretary of State, no one seems happy about the present position in regard to the Regular Air Force or the rapidity of recruitment to the Service. Certainly I am not happy about it. When we consider that during the war 95 per cent. of those called up for Service elected to go into the Air Force, either as air crew or for ground staff, and the popularity of the Service at that time, I cannot understand why more recruits are not anxious to go into the Service today, especially when we consider the opportunities for learning a trade which are now provided in the Service.
Various reasons have been given for the falling off in recruitment, chiefly those of pay and housing conditions. I endorse the criticism which has been made and I am convinced that pay and housing conditions are the two main reasons why more recruits are not anxious to go into the Air Force today and sign on for permanent service. I hope that these two matters will be very seriously considered and met at an early date, because it is vital that we should

have a strong regular Air Force and that we should have it soon. In regard to pay, I suggest that more attention should be given to the men who are time-expired in the Service in order to encourage them to re-enlist.
More could be done as regards pay and allowances and I hope the Secretary of State will look into that and try to get as many as possible of the time-expired men due to retire in the near future to re-enlist and give them greater encouragement by way of pay and housing conditions. I am amazed that he has not taken advantage of the opportunities open to him of obtaining temporary houses. I have seen these factory-made houses set up in under an hour on ready prepared sites and I have seen families living in them. I am convinced that officers and other ranks would be delighted to have houses like that in which to live instead of having to live with "in-laws" or in rooms, sometimes long distances from their stations.
I am also concerned about the size of these Estimates, especially as regards the Air Ministry in comparison with the operational side of the Royal Air Force. When we consider the amount of the Vote which goes to administration and compare that with the amount that goes to the operational side of the Royal Air Force, I am amazed. I hope something will be done to see that far less staff are employed tilling up forms and asking for returns from stations where station officers, N.C.Os and men are engaged practically the whole of their time filling up forms and being chairborne instead of airborne. There is far too much of that and I hope that less clerical work will be required so that more men will be able to fulfil their proper functions in the Air Force and not be tied to desks, as at present.
The other aspect I wish to discuss is the strength of aircraft and pilots. I was not at all satisfied with the statement by the Secretary of State last week about the increased strength of the Air Force. We were told that the number of aircraft were being doubled. We were not told what the original strength was, though many of us guessed and certainly over the weekend the Press had a very good guess. I suggested at the time of the statement that the air squadrons were only being brought up to establishment. Before the war the


establishment was 12 aircraft to a squadron of two flights. In addition to that, most squadrons, certainly in Fighter Command, carried another 50 per cent. on reserve.
What is the position today? Have we increased the establishment? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said when I questioned him that the establishment had been doubled but, unless there has been a considerable change since I knew the Air Force, the squadrons today are only up to strength and there is no reserve at all. That is what I am concerned about. Before the war in Fighter Command the Royal Air Force policy was to train the reserve pilots in the squadrons, which carried 50 per cent. over strength for that purpose. There were no operational training units. That policy very nearly proved disastrous more than once during the war.
One cannot train pilots operationally and fight an air battle at the same time. One must have an operational training unit. There were such units in Bomber Command at the end of the war and there was always a steady stream of aircrew, but in Fighter Command when the big battles took place there was no reserve left. That happened after the Dunkirk battle when almost every squadron had heavy losses and some were wiped out altogether. There were no reserves to draw upon. Fortunately for us, we had time between then and the Battle of Britain to train new pilots and to re-equip squadrons. Even then at the end of the Battle of Britain, without operational training units, we found ourselves in an almost disastrous position. Young pilot officers had to be put in command of squadrons. There was also a serious difficulty about aircraft.
I should not be so unhappy about the strength of the squadrons today if I knew that there were operational training units which could feed the squadrons in the event of war. It is obvious that we shall not have much time to build up operational training units if a war takes place today. I want to know from the Minister if any steps are being taken to provide and equip O.T.U.'s for the Royal Air Force and particularly for Fighter Command. Without this training ground and this reserve of operationally trained pilots, I consider that we are running the greatest risks. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to these points.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Crawley: The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) mentioned co-ordination of Anglo-American Air Forces, and before I sit down I should like to come back to that point. First, I wish to discuss one or two points of detail which arise on these votes. Among the people whose pay we are voting are the air attachés who serve in foreign countries and collect our intelligence and whose work is bound up with the whole question of security. I do not want to enter into the argument we had last week about whether or not the Government are being too secure in giving us so little information, except to say that on balance I think it is a fault on the right side. In one respect, however, I am afraid that we in this country are not secure enough. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) in accusing the Government of being over-cautious, said last week that he was sure that in this country every foreign air attaché had a very clear picture of what was the size of the Royal Air Force.
I speak as one who served as an attaché in hostile or potentially hostile countries, and I consider his picture was much overdrawn. On the surface it would seem to be extraordinarily easy to get the sort of information which the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, and perhaps I myself, have been able to get about our Air Force here. As a layman, particularly if one has friends in the Service, there does not appear to be much difficulty about it. But when one is living in another country and when one is regarded with suspicion by the Government of that country, as one of the official spies—which really an air attaché is—it can be extraordinarily difficult to get any accurate picture of the state of their forces since official services are practically closed and one has to rely on a great variety of other sources. One gets an enormous number of contradictory reports whatever agents one has.
The great difficulty is to get any confirmation. If one cannot get official confirmation of any of the facts and figures one must try to get first-hand evidence from somebody somewhere. A man is extremely lucky, however large a fifth-column there may have been in the country—and where I served there was a very small one—if he happens to hit


upon someone who can really say that he knows for a fact that such and such a figure is correct. My view about the likelihood of foreign attachés here, who are not given a great deal of official information, knowing much about our Air Force is that they will be speculating within certain limits and that they will have a vague general picture which is not too inaccurate. But there is an enormous amount of information which they would like to have but about which they can get no confirmation.
The basis of all official intelligence work through air attachés is reciprocity. We allow the same facilities to attachés here as our attachés are allowed in foreign countries. The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield recently suggested that any attaché here might be able to get into an aircraft and fly around this country over our aerodromes and see whatever he likes. In fact, only a very limited number of air attachés in this country would be allowed to get into an aircraft without careful precautions being taken and without exact information being given of where they intended to go. It is only representatives of those countries who grant that facility to us abroad, who would be allowed to fly here, and they are not very many in number. I understand, however, that in this country attachés are allowed to drive about wherever they like unmolested and that no check whatever is kept of their movements. That is not a reciprocal facility. There are many countries in Europe where we have air attachés who are not allowed to drive about wherever they like in cars and where a close check is kept on their movements.
Only a few weeks ago our air attaché at Prague was expelled, I understand, simply for using facilities to move about the country as he thought he was entitled to do. So far—it may be for very good reasons—no retaliatory action has been taken. I appreciate the difficulties. We have not got secret police who are available to track people down and keep a tag on their movements. Also, there is no limit, as there is in some countries in Europe, on the number of visitors who can come here. Therefore, it is much easier for foreign attachés to get information through civilian channels than it is for our attachés to do that in countries where there are very few British visitors.

Nevertheless, it is not too reliable to get information through a third party who is not necessarily skilled in the classification of it. Where foreign countries do not allow freedom of movement to our air attachés, I do not think that their attachés here should be allowed unlimited freedom.
If there is a shortage of police which makes this difficult there is none the less quite a good remedy. The practice abroad is simple. The attachés of the three Services are obliged to inform the respective Ministries where they are going by car, when they have to go by car. They are not always followed, but if in fact they are followed or a report is received from a civilian inhabitant, or anybody else, that they have been seen at a certain place the Ministry concerned immediately rings up the Embassy and says, "We learn that your attaché was seen at so-and-so and he never told us that he was going." If that happens more than once or twice the attaché is declared no longer persona grata, and he is sent home. I believe that that procedure could be introduced here with advantage. All that would need to be done would be to instruct the Service police wherever they are stationed that if they see a diplomatic car in the vicinity of the perimeter of their aerodrome, to take the number and report to the Air Ministry. Then if the Air Ministry have not been informed previously they could make inquiries. That is a perfectly civil and courteous arrangement. I consider that we are granting facilities to some Powers which we certainly are not granted by them, or if we have attempted to use such powers we have suffered for it by having our attaché expelled.
I wish to refer to the question of allowances about which so much has already been said. Owing to the shortage of houses many people have to live a long way from where they work and the Air Ministry does make an allowance for extra travelling. As I understand it, a man who lives away from his command or station and travels by train or bus has to pay 2s. 6d. a week himself, and the balance is paid by the Service. That does not apply to people serving in the Air Ministry, because they receive an allowance of 4s. a day, and there are a good many hundreds of them. That allowance is subject to tax and amounts


actually to little more than half of the 4s. a day. Many of them who live 30 or 40 miles out of London suffer to the tune of £40 or £50 a year compared with people who do not get the London allowance, but who have a proportion of their expenses paid for them. That seems to be an anomaly which should be reviewed. I know of one case where a man, who is at the Air Ministry and lives outside London, has worked it out that he loses £50 a year compared with what he was paid at his last station.
I am told by my friends in the Air Force that one of the greatest grievances with regard to pay and allowances is the allowance made to married men and officers who have to live out. They have to rent furnished houses or rooms, often at short notice and the rents are not subject to control. They have therefore often to pay substantial sums. Compared with the married man living on the station they are not only worse off financially, but, because they sometimes live 12 or 15 miles away, they lose all the amenities of the station which represent considerable sums, such as free entertainment, free games and opportunities of education for their children. I consider that there also is a case for revision and that these allowances for married officers who cannot get into married quarters should be put on a more elastic basis. Perhaps it could be done in every individual case rather as is done now by the National Assistance Board or in some similar manner.
I do not wish to enter into the question of the morale of the Air Force, because that has been fully debated, but I am told—and it is my experience so far as I have been able still to keep in touch with the Air Force—that the difficulty which Air Force officers have always experienced in keeping in close touch with their men is increasing rather than decreasing. The difficulty arises particularly among young pilots, because they are, both figuratively and literally in these days, wrapt up in their machines. Normally they meet only the fitter and the rigger, and one or two other people of the flight, who deal with the machines, and their contact with other ranks is limited. If they live off the station this contact is all the more limited. It is a truism to say that the care of, and a sense of responsibilty for, the men under

his command is the making of an officer. In the Air Force it is difficult for officers to get that sense of responsibility quite as fully as in the other Services.
It is disturbing to learn that this difficulty is increased by the fact that most of the personal questions from other ranks are dealt with by the chief technical officer and that the ordinary station officer, the flying officer and pilot officer, have less to do than before. I have no doubt that there are good reasons for this, but it is the young officer of whom I am thinking and, for whatever reason it was introduced, if it results in the younger officers having less contact with the men it is a serious thing.
When so many men who had war service are being, quite rightly, taken back as officers into the Air Force I feel that the need for officers' training establishments is greater and not less than if these men had not had war service. So many people quite rightly obtained commissions during the war and they did excellent service but in different conditions from those which exist in peacetime. The obligations and duties of officers in peace-time are different from those in war-time. I am told, both by those who have gone back and are taking commissions, and Who were officers in war-time, and by some of the older officers, that a much fuller training of men as officers should be given as soon as possible.
I would take up what the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) said and I would agree that the most important thing at the moment, particularly from the point of view of economy, is the co-ordination as rapidly as possible of our Air Force with the Air Force of the United States for the defence of the Western Hemisphere. I do not propose to go into the arguments again, but my right hon. Friend is aware of my views. I would emphasise that the signing of the Atlantic Pact will give him the opportunity which he mentioned in his speech last week when he spoke of having to reorientate or change the design of our Air Force to changing political and diplomatic circumstances. He knows that I think the step might have been taken sooner, because the realities of the situation were the same then as now. The fact is that the diplomatic circumstances have changed, and I hope


he will put forward suggestions for coordination and urge the Minister of Defence to take the matter up with the United States at the highest possible level as quickly as possible. I see no other way in which we can make the really large economies which are absolutely essential if we are to expand our Air Force and have an efficient Air Force, and at the same time continue our economic recovery.

7.10 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: One cannot but have great sympathy with anyone framing Estimates for any of the Services in these days. We have not got the 10-year gap as we had after the last war, and almost before demobilisation is ended, we are having to build up our Forces again. I have noticed in the Debates in the last few weeks on these topics that we have protagonists with various points of view. Some say "Get ready for a Pearl Harbour"; some, I imagine, want to be ready for a "phoney" war. Whatever we are preparing for, it is obvious that the spearhead is bound to be the R.A.F.
It seems to me that we must never forget that for all the people in this island, together with the R.A.F. Civil Defence is the absolutely prior basis on which all our activities must be founded. I hope that the activities in that direction which were operated in war time on R.A.F. stations, are still being catered for so that if there were a Pearl Harbour or if we were in the position of a Malta, we should not be blotted out in the first onslaught, for in that event the other Services would not have much part to play. The R.A.F. is included in that overall priority for Civil Defence. We have been told that the way to avoid an atomic bomb is not to be there when it drops. If we are to stop an atomic bomb from being dropped, we must see that it does not set off from the point where it has been prepared. In the later stages of the war we stopped V.2's from falling on London in great numbers, because most of them were stillborn as a result of attacks by Bomber Command.
I want to give one word of warning to my friends on the Front Bench, namely, not to take too much notice of people who say "Lay down great plans for building' up big bomber or fighter

Forces, adopt certain aircraft as your pattern and build those aircraft by hundreds and thousands." Experience has shown that the R.A.F. is all the greater because it is flexible and that if our Air Forces of any kind were committed to a pattern too early in their development, it would create a danger. I remember people asking me why the Germans did not attack railway centres in this country during the war, why they did not attack Doncaster and other important transport targets and smash up our lines of communication. The simple fact is that the Germans—I suppose Goering was to blame—simply had no conception of strategic bombing. They whistled through Europe with a tactical air force clearing the way for their troops. That plan worked but after that, they seemed to have no idea of strategic bombing. That is where the R.A.F. scored with its onslaught chiefly of Lancasters and Halifaxes.
I am told that the Lancaster was already at the blue print stage in 1935 although it did not come into operational activity until 1942. It had been in existence but had not been manufactured in great numbers while we were turning out other kinds of aircraft. After a great deal of thought and research upon other types of aircraft we banked on the Lancaster, and it finished the war for us. But even in that there is a danger. While the crescendo of Lancaster production was developing, a very small aircraft came along and did a great part of the work of Bomber Command. It did so successfully, and did not need to dodge the defences to the extent to which the Lancaster had to do.
I refer to the Mosquito, that plywood little wonder, manned by two men, which did not have to worry about the defences, while our bomber force was cavorting across Europe, dodging the defences in the occupied countries in Germany because our heavy bombers could not fly direct, as the defences had to be outmanœuvred. I have often wondered if we did not commit ourselves too early to the mass manufacture of the Lancaster and whether it would not have been better to have built the necessary numbers of Mosquitos to do the job, with far less danger from the defences. I do not know whether it could have been done, but it would be worth while looking into that question to give us some guide as to our path in the future.
I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Crawley) who speaks with great weight on matters of security. I have been at the other end and have seen security in operation at our aerodromes. What impressed me was that on the whole security was good in the last war. It seems to be good now, because the longer I live the less I seem to get to know about the R.A.F. Sometimes I think they are rather overdoing security in keeping the secrets of the R.A.F. from us. By that I do not mean secrets of the performances of high speed aircraft and matters of that kind, but the general picture of what the R.A.F. is now doing as a part of our communal life. If we in this House and the general public could be taken a little more into the confidence of the R.A.F. it would be of benefit.
It is perfectly true that most people going into the Services plump for the R.A.F. I am sure that that plumping would be even greater if people were given an idea of the general picture of what the activity of the R.A.F. is today. During the war I came across appalling instances of ignorance on the part of the general public about what the Air Force was doing, because the shutter was kept down so well. Yet it would not have impaired the efficiency of the R.A.F., had the general public been told what was happening. I remember on one occasion having to receive a silver cup for work we had done in a Wings for Victory Week. The chairman of the local rural council came and presented the cup. We walked about 100 yards down the perimeter track. There were one or two Wellington aircraft—good old stand-bys of the war years—standing there. These leaders of local life said to me, "Are those Lancasters?" I should have thought that any small boy in those days could have told them that those planes were Wellingtons, but they just did not know. One said, "A lot of planes went up last night." I said, "Yes." I happened to know the exact number that left this country although I did not, of course, tell them that. They said, "They came from the north." I replied, "Yes, do you know whence they came?" The reply I got was, "No, but I think they came from Sheffield." So far as I know there were and still are few aerodromes within 50 miles of Sheffield.
Our great bombing aerodromes are situated all along the eastern part of England from Newcastle down to Cambridgeshire. [Interruption.] Is this considered to be a lack of security? Many can be seen from the train as one goes to York from London, and the tanks and armoured vehicles now standing on its perimeter tracks can be seen. I remember that during the war Goebbels issued a map, which was published in the "News Chronicle," showing the aerodromes from which bombing attacks went out. We have already been told in these Debates that we are to have flying displays and people are probably to be asked to these aerodromes this year. I hope that will be so. There might well be some let-up on security considerations.
My next point concerns Commonwealth defence. During the war the Commonwealth air forces obviously acted as one unit. There would be one squadron which was, say, Rhodesian, another purely Canadian, working alongside squadrons made up of personnel from this country. I hope that same activity is going on. We have had one or two pieces of news in the newspapers in the last few weeks showing that the Canadians are taking part in our activities. That links up with the training which we are managing to do in various parts of the Commonwealth.
In Southern Rhodesia, the Empire Training Scheme is still carried on, and I should like to know if we have any plans for continuing definitely with that scheme in that part of the world. Nearly four years have elapsed since they were turning out pilots, navigators and members of aircrews, who came to this country and took part in the activities of Bomber Command. I wonder if that machine is now geared up and turning out the personnel which it should be turning out at this time, and if we are getting a great Commonwealth Air Force going again. The Under-Secretary referred to his visit to Rhodesia in his speech last week, and what interested me most was one small excerpt in which he said:
The Southern Rhodesian Government came forward in 1946 to help us. There was a difficult beginning because Southern Rhodesia was overwhelmed with settlers, and houses and other accommodation could not be provided as was hoped, but the scheme is working out well, and the quality of the navigators and pilots is excellent.


Later, the Under-Secretary said:
We have provided men, money and technical experience. It is a great encouragement to all who believe in the Commonwealth's contribution to world peace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2074–5.]
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, but what I noticed is lacking in these extracts is any reference to the question of housing accommodation. We know it is very difficult throughout the Commonwealth, yet it is necessary if we are going to keep up morale and turn out efficient pilots and navigators from these aerodromes. Obviously, conditions in Rhodesia are very different from those in this country, where we may have these great aerodromes within five miles of a cathedral city. I am told that there are great difficulties at the moment regarding the provision of housing accommodation, especially married quarters, which are very much needed. I am also informed that, since the war, no real building has gone on in these places to provide married quarters. I know that a certain number of a famous type of houses such as those in Hampshire have been erected, but I ask the Under-Secretary to expand his statement the other day and tell us, for instance, whether he learnt anything about this matter when he addressed a gathering of all ranks at an aerodrome in Rhodesia. Will he say whether any grievance was expressed about married quarters, because my information is that there is a strong feeling of grievance on these aerodromes.
My next point concerns flying clubs. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) mention them. I was also very pleased at the support given by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who did very well for us last week. I know that, in speaking to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench on this matter, we are pushing at an open door, because they are keen to help us. I was particularly glad, though surprised, to learn that the Under-Secretary himself is a member of a flying club, and therefore I do not see how he can do anything but help us to get this movement back on its feet. It is 18 months since three hon. Members of this House sat on the Advisory Council for Private Flying to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and we produced what I

think all agree is a good report, but 18 months is a long time in which to keep the flying clubs waiting to see whether they will get any Government help at all.
I know from my conversations with Members of the Front Bench who have served in the Service that they and the Minister of Civil Aviation are showing a much better receptivity to the flying club idea than was the case some time ago, and I believe that it is now largely a matter of finance. I hope that whoever will give the decision will bear in mind the fact that, for a small fraction of the money we are voting in these Estimates today, we could have a really fine flying club movement in this country which would be equal to, if not better than, the flying club movements of so many other smaller countries where they seem to have had no help at all from Government money and backing. Indeed, the movement has a great chance of providing the reserves for the three Services where there is now so much integration of the work of military personnel with flying activities.
I want to give some of the latest particulars about the movement which might persuade whoever has to give the final decision what these clubs can do. At the moment, in this country there are 55 clubs, and the highest number there ever was in the pre-war years was 57. We could have at least twice as many in this country and afford an excellent opportunity for our young people to take an interest in flying and to become air-minded. Here are some statistics about the Midland Bank Flying Club. At the outbreak of the war, the club had 84 ordinary flying members, and had 100 Civil Air Guard members, 32 of whom had taken their "A" Licence. There were 88 non-flying members out of a total of 272. Of this total, 125 served in the R.A.F. as pilots, 10 served on other aircrew duties and 88 on ground duties—all this out of a membership of 272, of which 88 were non-flying, making 223 who had served directly in the R.A.F. One of these men became a group-captain, one became a wing-commander, and 13 reached the rank of squadron-leader. Between them, they gained 28 D.F.C.s and two Bars, seven A.F.C.s, seven D.F.M.s, nine M.B.E.s, two Mentions in Despatches, one Croix de


Guerre and one U.S. Air Medal. No fewer than 37 were killed on active service.
If that record does not prove what a valuable reserve the flying clubs can provide, I do not know what would. Many of those who distinguished themselves in the R.A.F. learned to fly initially in these flying clubs. Air Vice-Marshal Ambler, who was trained by the Yorkshire Aeroplane Club, is one, and another is Group-Captain Gillam, D.S.O., D.F.C., A.F.C., who learned to fly when he was 17 with the Norfolk and Norwich Aero Club, which also trained O'Meara, D.S.O., D.F.C., Mottram, D.F.C. and Bar, Boxer, D.S.O., and, in addition, Winifred Crossley, who was second in command of the women's section of the A.T.A. We should also bear in mind that the present chief executive of B.O.A.C. received his first training in a flying club, and I am told, though I have not had it from him personally, that his training in the air cost the Government nothing. We all know what a distinguished record he had in the war.
If anybody wants any further justification of the value of these clubs for defence purposes, there it is. If nothing more is done, are these 55 clubs to be left to their own devices? If that is so the old gibe which we have often heard —that these flying clubs were the playthings of well-to-do people—will come true, because nobody but wealthy people will be able to put down £400 to learn to fly and gain a certificate as a fully qualified pilot.
There is one last point, and this concerns the female section. I believe that the W.R.A.F. have not been mentioned in this Debate—

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): They have.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: Well, they have not been mentioned enough. In the last war, they did a magnificent job of work, and it is obvious that we should make up our minds to see that they can do a magnificent job in the new organisation. We have seen how they are capable of doing work which, before the last war began, would not have been regarded as suitable for women. Hitler never dared to regiment the womenfolk of the German Reich as much as we did when we introduced compulsory service for them.

I hope that there will be some improvement in that condition. It is all very well in war time putting up rough timber buildings for their accommodation and expecting them to rough it while carrying out their duty of getting the bombers and fighters into the air, but it is now time, four years after the end of the war, to give them the same conditions in the Service as they would have if they stayed at home.
I think they have the shabbiest uniform of all the Women's Services. It is a very queer kind of uniform. It does not remain in a smart condition for very long, and it is of an unfortunate colour which fades vary rapidly. Compared with the W.R.N.S. or the A.T.S., the W.R.A.F. personnel always seem to be badly turned out. The material of their uniform is poor, and, as I say, its colour fades very quickly. I should like to see some real improvement in that direction. Let us take as a pattern the Canadians or the Americans whose equivalents to the W.R.A.F.s were always well turned out, and still are. If we could have some improvement in the matter of dress, I am sure that the morale of the W.R.A.F.s would be far higher than it is at present.

7.32 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) has covered many points. I was a little confused about what he said in regard to the planning of the Royal Air Force. He said that it should not be planned on a long-term period, and that it ought to have aircraft rather improvised—

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: What I wanted to convey was that we must not tie ourselves up to a special line of industrial production of one or two types of aircraft because we ought to be in a position to turn over to the production of something new at a moment's notice.

Air-Commodore Harvey: If we had followed that course in the 1930's, we should not have had the Spitfires and Hurricanes during the war.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Crawley) spoke about air attachés. It is comparatively easy for air attachés in this country to get information, but it is not so easy for British attachés overseas. He spoke about their having cars in which to go about. One or two air attachés


abroad who are known to me, have not even a bicycle, let alone a car, to help them to get the information. During the last Debate, the Minister of Defence interrupted my speech, and I should now like to explain to him my point of view on a matter which he will no doubt recall. I should like to assure him and the Secretary of State for Air that at no time have I ever discussed any matter concerning the Royal Air Force with joint planners. There are many officers in all three Services who talk about the "cold war" and the prospects of such a war. Whatever regulations exist, men cannot be stopped from discussing a matter of that kind. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that I have never discussed the long-term planning of his Department with personnel of the Air Force, or the other two Services, and neither have they discussed it with me.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I am very glad to receive the hon. and gallant Gentleman's assurance; it relieves my mind a great deal. I am sure he will appreciate that if he actually quotes a view in the House, it would be very unwise to make it appear that he has been having talks with planners.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman made the point about joint planners himself. There are many planners at the Central Tory Office and elsewhere; I would not say they are too good, but we have got planners.
I wish to emphasise again the importance of the question of pay for the Services. Much has been said about it in previous Debates, and it must be realised that if we are to get the men there must be some upward adjustment in their pay and allowances. Without a strong and adequate Air Force, all the other schemes are useless. We have the groundnut scheme costing millions of pounds and all the other schemes which the Government have in mind. I believe an increase in pay could to some extent be met out of economies effected in the Services and other Government Departments. It could be done if only the Government would face up to the problem.
As far as the auxiliary services are concerned, Vote 2 proposes an increase of £575,000. I do not think that is enough.

It is a very small amount when we consider how much we rely on the reserves and auxiliary forces. That was proved in the early part of the last war, and already our auxiliary squadrons are capable of flying on equal terms alongside the regular squadrons. As I have said before, it is a very cheap investment for the Government to get these men to do their training at weekends. There is no pension liability, and we could not get better value for our money. I should like to see this figure increased so that we could get more auxiliary squadrons. It would be a much better investment than the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, although, of course, that is a great organisation for feeding the main squadrons should they require reinforcements.
To get more recruits into the air, the Air Ministry might care to consider a scheme of liaison with the schools. Some serving officers deal with their own schools; they give lectures and so on. That sort of thing should be extended to officers of auxiliary squadrons and those on the reserve. I would very gladly act in such a liaison capacity with my own school and try to persuade cadets to go to Cranwell or Halton, as the case may be. It is important to interest these young men in the Royal Air Force. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the matter in great detail, but the results have not been forthcoming.
Under Vote 7, which deals with aircraft and stores, there is a net increase of £16,500,000, of which £13,500,000 is to be spent on aircraft. That is not a great deal of money when we consider the present cost of, say, a jet fighter or larger aircraft. I should like to have seen that figure increased. I am not quite clear whether in that figure are included the aircraft which we have to supply to Western European countries.

Mr. A. Henderson: Mr. A. Henderson indicated dissent.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that such aircraft are not included in that figure.

Mr. Henderson: Those are the net figures after taking into consideration anything that may have been supplied to other countries. That is expenditure on aircraft for ourselves.

Air-Commodore Harvey: It is very comforting to hear that. Very little has


been said about radar and the electrical services. As in the last war, these services will play a great part in our defence system in any future war. I should like to be assured that they are being adequately maintained, and that we have sufficient men to man them in training exercises.
The sum of £4,320,000 is being spent on clothing, and there is a slight increase of £285,000. If the uniform of the Royal Air Force was smartened up it would be a great attraction to recruits. The American Air Force have copied us and put their men into blue uniforms, but I am told that the cut and material of their uniforms for other ranks are the same as the officers with the exception, of course, of the badges on the caps and collars signifying their rank and the branch of the service they are in. Of course, I appreciate the fact that the Americans have more money than we have to spend on these items, but I am sure that if we are to get the full number of recruits, and the right type, we shall have to improve on the battle dress with which they are at present being issued.
Regarding works services in Vote 8, I should like to reinforce what the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth said about married quarters. I know that the Air Force has done quite well compared with the Army and the Navy, but they have not done anything like well enough. I am sure that most hon. Members receive letters from serving officers and their wives complaining about difficulties in getting around and following their husbands. Only this morning I received a letter from a woman whose husband is in Singapore. She said that he would sign on for a longer period if he could get a house so that she could go out and join him. I do not know whether that is a good point at the moment concerning Singapore; nevertheless, these wives want quarters. The education of the children is completely dislocated. Children of 10 years of age probably have to go to four or five different schools. This lack of quarters is not at all helpful to the domestic affairs of those who are married and in the Services.
As to airfields, I should like an assurance from the Under-Secretary that runways are being maintained. Many of these airfields were built very hurriedly

during the war, and there is no doubt that perimeter tracks and runways are deteriorating on certain airfields. I should like to know that the money voted for the works services is being spent on maintaining them in good condition.
I want to say a few words about the Women's Royal Air Force. There is no doubt that they have done a very tine job of work. When people decry what the women have done for the fighting Services, they completely underestimate their value. In many cases they carry out duties better than the men themselves in some branches of the Air Force. They are certainly far better when it comes to dealing with intricate radar and operations room duties. There is no doubt that the women of the Royal Air Force Reserve who are trying to carry out flying are very dissatisfied with their terms of service. I am not conversant with all their complaints, but I do know that they want something better to wear in the way of uniform and they want to get in more flying. The amount of flying they can carry out is very limited.
The other suggestion I want to make concerns the age limit for pilots in the Reserve, which is 42. There is a case for extending that age limit for men perhaps up to 50, if they are medically fit, so that they may fly transport aircraft in times of emergency. It was done in the last war by the A.T.A. There are many men who would like to carry out training to enable them to render this form of service in the event of hostilities. I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us what is being done about the number of courses of instruction in the Air Force. According to the last figure, the number of courses is 256. I hope the Air Force is introducing economies by dispensing with some of these courses or combining them, because the Service would be more efficient as a result.
Our Air Force is small, but I believe it is good. Those of us who have seen the Air Force fly recently feel sure that the standard of flying is every bit as good as it has ever been. I remember that at the beginning of the war it was said that they could not fly in formation in Hurricanes because they went so fast. Now when Vampires fly around we see that their pilots can fly in beautiful formation. On a trip to America last year they won outstanding praise from thousands of people


who saw them. I am sure that the Air Force could still take on five to one if they had to, and I should think that the standard of flying ought to be a warning to any country not to interfere with the British Isles. I hope the Government will do all they can to enlarge our Air Force at the earliest opportunity. By so doing we should have a Service which would play a large part in preventing a recurrence of war.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I must confess that I did not feel very competent to venture into a Services Debate but, having engaged for some time now in a war of attrition, I feel that I have gained sufficient experience to ventilate an opinion or two. It is just as well that these Debates are nearing a conclusion, because having observed the generals shouldering their crutches, captains of aircraft flapping their wings and admirals weighing their anchors, I began to feel that if the Debate did not come to an end very soon we would be at war with somebody.
I was gravely disturbed in an earlier part of the Debate when I heard the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) tell us that there might be a flare up in July. I was also disturbed when the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine, Eastern (Mr. Boothby) told us that our security depended on an overwhelming Air Force. After an excellent and sensible speech from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) dismissed it with the statement that it was unrealistic and that it was quite impossible to talk to the Russians. I felt that we were living in an atmosphere of war. Earlier in the Debate today the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) said that he could not understand why people were not going into the Air Force. I can give him a simple and straight answer. The reason is that they do not want to go to war. We in this House should make every endeavour to ensure that our nation does not go to war, and all our policies ought to be directed to that end. Frankly, I did not get that feeling while listening to these Debates.
On Saturday afternoon I had the great pleasure of speaking to a packed meeting in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire —I do not think he knew I was there —and when I referred to the point of view which he had put before this House last Tuesday it was greeted with the loudest cheer that I have heard for a very long while. From my own experience I would say that in his speech last Tuesday my hon. Friend put forward a point of view which is more in keeping with the attitude of mind of the country as a whole, than the point of view put forward by many other speakers in the Debates, both on the Opposition side and, I am sorry to say, on this side as well. I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will make it clear that the views—the war views, I am sorry to say—which have been expressed do not represent the views of this Government, and that they will do everything in their power—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman is going very wide. We have already had a long and wide discussion in the Committee stage on these Votes.

Mr. Rankin: I realise that, and I am very sorry. I am indebted to you, Mr. Bowles, for allowing me to go so far. I hope my hon. Friend will make it clear, in his reply, that these are not the views of the Government.
I want to turn to one specific aspect of what these Estimates involve, in so far as they impinge upon the peaceful pursuits of the civilian population. We have to remember that preparation for war affects us in our ordinary civilian life.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have told the hon. Member that he cannot go so wide and that he must keep himself much more closely to this Vote.

Mr. Rankin: I am talking about the Vote with which we are dealing—Vote A. I take it that that is under consideration now. It deals with the amount to be expended on the pay of officers of the Royal Air Force and on equipment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member obviously has not read the Vote. It deals with the number of officers and men and has nothing to do with payment.

Mr. Rankin: Vote A deals with the R.A.F., the officers and the total amount expended, and I take it that that will include the use to which these officers and that money is put.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. That is quite correct, but the hon. Member cannot get into a long discussion on pacifism and so on which was discussed on the Army Vote last Thursday week.

Mr. Rankin: I said I had departed from that point. I wish to deal with a particular occurrence at Renfrew airport a fortnight ago today in which the R.A.F. were involved and I was stating, as my introductory point, the fact that these Services might affect us in our daily work. A fortnight ago today the services from Renfrew to Islay, to Belfast, to Campbeltown and to Northolt were disrupted. That was the occasion of Questions in this House from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire and myself. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War assured us, so far as I followed his answer, that that disruption was solely a matter for the civil services and was due to the weather conditions.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not yet followed the hon. Member. Has this anything to do with the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Rankin: Yes: that is what I propose to show. I want to assure my hon. Friend that that answer was not in keeping with the facts and that the real reason why air services were interrupted a fortnight ago today was not due to the weather but to the fact that the Royal Air Force refused to give air control at Renfrew the heights at which they were operating. The result was that, faced with that fact, with the fact also that it was not a very good day and with the appalling disaster at Coventry in their minds, in the interests of air safety they did not allow their services to continue. I might add that it was not nearly such a bad day as it was this morning, when we flew without any trouble, but the R.A.F. were not operating this morning as they were a fortnight ago. This raises a very important point because we feel that had it been London Airport or Northolt Airport the European services would not have been interrupted, nor would the trunk services have been interrupted.

We claim that the R.A.F., in carrying out their necessary exercises, ought not to interfere, or at least to interfere to the very minimum, with the necessary, peaceful pursuits of the people of this country.
Another point which I wish to mention is that a week ago yesterday, during the course of air exercises, aircraft flew at a very low height over certain houses in the neighbourhood in which I reside. This occurred at between 3 and 4 o'clock on Sunday, 13th March. They flew at such an alarmingly low height over a house which I know well, that a little child, two years of age, could not sleep during the whole of the night. That may be a necessary exercise. Is the necessity to recondition the nerves of the people of this country to the sound of our fighter aircraft in preparation for some of the things which hon. Members opposite have visualised? Is that one of the purposes of these exercises? If not, I do not think it is necessary in carrying out those exercises for aircraft to fly at such a low level as that at which they have been flying during certain periods in the last 10 days. I shall leave the subject there; I do not want to expand it beyond that, but I hope my hon. Friend, in his reply, will be able to give some real assurance on these matters to the people of Scotland.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. George Ward: I shall be very brief because the Army is waiting to march in as we fly out. The Debate has ranged over a variety of subjects and there is really little to be said. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn), after reading through the Report of the Debate which took place last Tuesday, that the Women's Royal Auxiliary Air Force did not get its fair share of the time. It would be a pity if the Women's Air Force got the impression that we in this House were not interested in their problems and I should like, therefore, in a very few minutes, to some extent to try to repair that omission.
If hon. Members will compare Table D and Table F at Appendix II they will find some rather strange anomalies. There are some special duties carrying with them additional pay for which both airmen and airwomen may qualify but,


having qualified, they do not always get the same additional pay. For example, a member of the crew of an aircraft, if a man, gets 1s. a day, whereas, if a woman, she gets only 9d. Is flying less hazardous for women and is the physical strain less than it is for a man? A male parachutist, for example, gets 2s. 6d. per day, but female parachutists only 1s. 11d. I cannot believe that parachuting is less dangerous for women than for men. Perhaps, it means that women do not maintain and pack their parachutes now. If not, why not? They did it in the war, and they did it extremely well. A male interpreter gets 1s. an hour and a female 9d. Surely, the examination to qualify is the some for both sexes? Why is a man supposed to be a better interpreter than a woman? For sanitary duties a man gets 6d., a woman 5d. I should have thought that sanitary duties were equally unpleasant for both sexes. In any case, from what I remember of sanitary duties in the Air Force, they are duties which ought to be carried out exclusively by men.
For tuberculosis nursing a male gets 6d. and a female 5d. Why? Are women less likely to catch tuberculosis than men are? These anomalies are very strange, are they not? However, a trumpeter, male or female, gets 3d. I should have thought that one could possibly argue that a man makes a better trumpeter than a women because his lungs are stronger, or he can trumpet for a longer period—although I have always thought that trumpeting should be confined to as short a period as possible. Proficiency in foreign languages is open to men but not to women. That, I think, must be a hangover from the past, when women were not sent abroad. Now they are, and surely they ought to be able to qualify for extra pay for proficiency in foreign languages. The allowances are the same, and so it is all the more strange that these special duties should carry with them different rates of pay.
Now I come to the W.R.A.F.V.R. A woman pilot who carries out flying training for the volunteer reserve gets £25 flying training bounty at the end of each year's service during which she has satisfactorily completed the training syllabus. Men pilots carrying out exactly the same duties get £35. Why is that? The

syllabus is the same for both; the same degree of skill is required in flying the same kind of aircraft; and the same risks are involved. That is a matter which I hope will be looked into. I am not arguing here that the W.R.A.F. women should always be paid the same as airmen for everything they do, but in the particular duties I have instanced I think some adjustment should be made.
On 10th November, 1948, I asked the Secretary of State a Question regarding the Air Ministry's pamphlet 236 requiring W.R.A.F.V.R. pilots to complete 100 hours' flying to qualify for acceptance into the flying branch of the Volunteer Reserve. I suggested that this figure was too high and that it could well be reduced to 60 hours, and I did that from my own experience as a flying instructor, remembering that it cost £3 an hour on the average at most flying clubs to carry out private flying, and that that means that these girls have to spend £300 before they can become acceptable for the Volunteer Reserve. When the Under-Secretary of State answered the Question he said that the Secretary of State was considering this point. That is the last I have heard of it, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would tell me if anything has yet been decided.
Also we should like to know how recruiting for the W.R.A.F. is proceeding, because such figures as the Secretary of State gave us on Tuesday included the figures for men and women together. All we know is that 14,500 Regulars have been recruited for the Women's Air Force since the war. What we should like to know is whether they are coming forward now in sufficient numbers. We who served in the Royal Air Force during the war know the large variety of duties which were admirably performed by W.A.A.F. personnel. We know their value to the Air Force, and we regard the recruiting of women for the Royal Air Force as of equal importance with the recruiting of the men. Those of us in this House who take an interest in air matters feel it our duty to fight the battles of the W.R.A.F., just as we feel it our duty to fight for the R.A.F.

8.6 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): It is quite right, since there are in this House no former members of the W.A.A.F., that ex-members of the R.A.F. should speak


up for them. Although they may have the same pay for trumpeting, since they are not here to blow their own trumpets, it is quite right that they should be blown for them. I welcome this opportunity and thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) and the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) for pointing out the great service that the W.R.A.F. is doing. Since 1st February this year, as the House knows, it has been an integral part of the Royal Air Force. That means that there is a full career in the Royal Air Force open to women, a career with a pension, so that she may serve her whole active life in the Service. Perhaps soon in these Service Debates, after the booms and rattlings of the retired admirals, generals and air-marshals, we shall have gracious words from retired air-commandants.
Although the W.R.A.F. is an integral part of the R.A.F. certain matters of a specifically female character are dealt with by women officers acting under the Director of the W.R.A.F. Apart from the direct value of the W.R.A.F. to the service, it has an indirect value. I was sorry to hear it suggested that the women were not well dressed. I believe them to be extremely smart, especially in their new silk stockings which in the past year have become an ordinary issue. It is found that when members of the W.R.A.F. are posted to a station, there is an immediate and lasting improvement in the smartness and bearing of the men of that station.
I was asked about the women in the Auxiliary Air Force. They are playing an important part, especially in the fighter control units where large numbers are required. In flying in the Volunteer Reserve, we have set a high standard in demanding 100 hours solo. Perhaps, we have set too high a standard, but we are trying to see if we can reduce that, and I think we may be able to do so in the case of those who have served in the Royal Air Force and who have been specifically recommended by the Director of the W.R.A.F.
Now for the women in the Berlin airlift. We talked on Tuesday a great deal about the work being done in that great enterprise, and it is right that I should now say something of what the women are doing. First, how eager they are to serve is illustrated by the

number who volunteer to serve there. Secondly, how fine is their work for the airlift can best be illustrated by this citation in the New Year's Honours List about a corporal W.A.A.F. at Gatow who won the British Empire Medal. The citation said:
She has been in charge of a composite party of airmen and women, and has led and organised them in a manner worthy of the highest praise. Her technical skill and ability.… have been of supreme value during the peak periods of unserviceability, while her cheerfulness and high sense of duty have greatly inspired those working with her. Corporal Fisher has on many occasions worked long and late hours.… She is, without doubt, a credit to the Air Force.
The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) referred to the shortage of pilots and recruitment from the schools. They asked what we were doing about it, and especially about having senior officers of the Royal Air Force as liaison officers with their old schools. We are extending that scheme and we welcome the help of ex-R.A.F. members of this House in keeping in touch with their schools whether they are public schools, grammar schools, or secondary schools. The Air Training Cadet units at the schools are links between Cranwell and the boys in their ordinary school life. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) mentioned the A.T.C. and asked me a number of questions about it. As I said on Tuesday, during the last year the strength has risen steadily and recruiting is now very good. Even more important the proportion of proficient cadets rises steadily. In 1947, the number of certificates was only 1,500 and in 1948 the number was 4,400.
I shall not repeat all that I said on gliding because I have already mentioned that point and that there were 2,000 solos in the A.T.C. during last year. As to the more general use of gliding in the R.A.F., which the hon. Member for St. Marylebone mentioned—and I know that he has had wide experience of this—we are trying to encourage gliding as a sport in the R.A.F. We shall begin by giving gliding instruction at the apprentice schools at Halton, St. Athan and Cranwell and, having got the apprentices interested in gliding, we hope that as they go into the Service they will foster interest in gliding at their stations and


that gradually and spontaneously we shall see gliding clubs growing up at those stations. I look forward to the time when every R.A.F. man on the ground will have had a chance of learning to glide at some time during his career.

Sir W. Wakefield: Could, perhaps, women who have gone solo in gliding and have shown interest in that sport be given some priority of consideration in order that they may become pilots?

Mr. de Freitas: We shall consider that in connection with the V.R. point which we were discussing. On the matter of flying clubs, which was mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth, there is very little that I can add to what my right hon. Friend has said about it. We are well aware of the contribution which flying clubs made during the last war.
The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), mentioned in the constructive part of his speech, the incident at Renfrew two weeks ago today. Concerning the allegation that the R.A.F. delayed the B.E.A. aircraft by delay in passing on information, and the allegation that the R.A.F. really grounded the civil aircraft, the facts are these: On 3rd March, the Air Ministry issued a navigation warning giving details of this exercise. On 4th March, the Uxbridge air traffic control centre broadcast details of the area and the time, but, through a misunderstanding, they did not broadcast to Renfrew and others two most important pieces of information: first, that the movement of bombers in this exercise would be notified, and, secondly, that the many fighters engaged in this operation would be under radar control. Therefore, on 7th March, B.E.A. on the spot at Renfrew knew that the weather was bad and they knew that the area was full of bombers and fighters, but, unfortunately, they did not know that the movements of the bombers would be notified, and that the fighters were under radar control. Accordingly—and it is hard to blame them for doing it—B.E.A. postponed the service. If they had known the other two factors they would probably have flown.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I point out that a number of Members of Parliament were delayed in getting to this House. It is the privilege of Members of

Parliament to come to this House without interference, and they were entitled to expect the same treatment from the R.A.F. as from the policeman who makes a way for them across the road to come here.

Mr. de Freitas: The policeman makes way for us to cross the road when coming here, but we do not have a police escort from our constituencies all the way here, with sirens and bells ringing. I am sorry that the hon. Member and his colleagues were inconvenienced in coming to this House, and I am sure that the Debate would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had been here in the morning to contribute to it.

Mr. Rankin: There is no complaint about inconvenience; that is a detail. The complaint is about the danger, which is the important point.

Mr. de Freitas: I do not want to make too much of this. There is great danger in war, but that danger is reduced if there is adequate defence, and we cannot have defence without peacetime training. However the danger to which my hon. Friend refers is the danger of collision, and I think that what the hon. Member has in mind is the accident at Coventry recently. Let us look at the facts. It is the only case on record in this country in which there has been such a collision when aircraft are flying under ordinary visual flying rules. Considering everything, including the experience which we had during the war when 1,000 bombers, in a short space of time, were put over one small target, and even when we look for a considerable expansion of flying, the chances of such collision are extremely small. I will not quote the figures which the statisticians have turned out on this subject. I do not think they are realistic because there are so many unknown factors, but the most unfavourable estimate is one chance in many years. As I said last week in answer to a question, we are working with the Ministry of Civil Aviation and we shall do our best to devise air traffic rules which will benefit both parties.
The hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth mentioned a Commonwealth Air Force and he wanted to know if we had Commonwealth squadrons. He put in a plea for a Commonwealth Air Force. I mentioned on Tuesday that


No. 24 Squadron is a true Commonwealth squadron although an R.A.F. Squadron. It is not a British Commonwealth Air Force Squadron because there is no such thing as a British Commonwealth Air Force It is right that if such a squadron exists it should be in the air force of the Mother country. Anyone who doubts the representative nature of that squadron should have the experience which I have had of trying to sleep after a guest night with that squadron and being distracted by sounds explained next morning as a demonstration of an aborigine dance put on by an Australian crew, a Maori dance by a New Zealand crew and a Zulu war dance by a South African crew.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield mentioned the number of courses. He put this question down four or five months ago and the number given in answer by my right hon. Friend was about 250. Even if we consider that there are aver 200 trades in the Royal Air Force, and that the chief task in peace time is to train, it is a fact that there are too many. We are having all courses closely examined. We have abolished some, we have amalgamated many more, and if the question were put down now the number would be nearer 200 than 250, although most of this reduction—and I do not want to mislead the hon. and gallant Member or the House—has been because we have calculated the number more accurately than before. Often a course of three stages was counted as three courses instead of only one.
I do not want to be too long, because the Army is waiting to march in. Many points were raised into which I will look and about which I will write to hon. Members. Other points I dealt with on Tuesday night and hon. Members can see my reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) asiced about the meteorological services and in particular about the housing of his constituents at the central forecasting office. I cannot accept the doctrine that the Government are responsible for the housing of these civilians. But I can say—and this relates to the specific question he put—first, that as far as I can see the office will be at Dunstable for at least ten years: and

secondly, that I have much better news for him on housing than I expected to have, and I will write to him. As for the meteorological service generally, we recognise the great service they are giving to agriculture, aviation, fishing and merchant shipping. Their forecasts are far more accurate than is often supposed.
One of the most important developments has been the increasing use by this office in the hon. Members' constituency of the post mortem. Each day the forecast for the previous day is compared by senior officers with the actual conditions, and comparison of promise and performance is as good for meterologists as it is for politicians. It is chastening for them, and has shown real results. We all know from the recent speeches of the hon. Member for Luton that he is against any barriers being erected between East and West. We should be grateful that meterology is a science which has not had a Marxist analysis, and that there is no Lysenko to prove that cumulo nimbus clouds build up many time faster in dynamic Russia than in the effete West. It is appropriate that weather reports come in to this office in the hon. Member's constituency as regularly from Vladivostock and Moscow as they do from Portland, Maine, and Portland. Oregon.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put and agreed to.

Resolutions reported:

VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE

"That a sum, not exceeding £55,200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950."

VOTE 2. RESERVE AND AUXILIARY SERVICES

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,300,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 27,000, all ranks, for the Air Force Reserve and 20,000, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1950."

VOTE 7. AIRCRAFT AND STORES

"That a sum, not exceeding £64,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of aircraft and stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950."

VOTE 8. WORKS AND LANDS

"That a sum, not exceeding £22,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950."

VOTE 10. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

"That a sum, not exceeding £3,100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950."

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1948–49

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,400,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

[For details of Vote see OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1949: Vol. 462, c. 2079–80.]

Resolutions agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1949–50.

[10th March]

VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

Resolution reported:
That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 550,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of His Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Colonel Dower: On a point of Order. Will these Votes be taken separately? If I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, I wish to say something on Vote B. When would be the proper time to do that?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): When the Vote is put before the House. The first Vote is Vote A. As the Debate earlier in the month was very wide we are very restricted. The hon. and gallant Member can raise his point when the second Vote is put from the Chair, if he is lucky enough to catch the eye of whoever is in the Chair.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The Under-Secretary of State for Air said in his

concluding remarks that the Army were marching in. I feel sure that the Debate on food is marching close in on the Army; we know that an army marches on its stomach, and I feel that the food column presses on very close.
Tonight I shall keep very close to the Resolution and confine my remarks largely to numbers. I saw the Secretary of State for War here a minute ago, and I am sorry that he should now have left us, because we must congratulate him on the fact that he controls one of the most numerous peace-time Armies this country has ever seen. The question is whether it is the most effective, and purely on numbers I am sure the Under-Secretary will appreciate it when I say that I, somewhat like Pope, lisp in numbers, not because the numbers come but because they alarm me quite exceedingly. We have this enormous Army of something like 400,000 soldiers: considerable force indeed, which somehow strikes one rather like the army of Monte Carlo in reverse, for that has a very small number of soldiers and a considerable number of formations while we have very few formations and an enormous number of soldiers. That is what alarms us.
Doubtless the Under-Secretary read today the very interesting article in the "Daily Telegraph" by their important foreign military correspondent, a lieutenant-General, who was referring to the Balkan armies—the Bulgarian Army has 140,000 men under arms—which can boast of 10 Balkan divisions. We have 400,000 men under arms, and it is very questionable how many divisions we can boast of. If one takes the figures from the "New Statesmen and Nation"—which after all is a Government paper in some senses and is in some ways inspired—they talk about two divisions and one or two brigade groups. Certainly having seen the chaos lately caused by sending out one brigade group to Malaya, with leave being stopped in certain areas, and so on, one wonders whether there is not something wrong, and whether, despite the enormous mass of men, there is sufficient flexibility in the Army.
One thing is quite certain, and that is, looking across the water to France—which, after all, has a very long experience of conscription—and looking at this enormous outpouring of men and


money one thing is entirely lacking, and that is what the French call unité de couverture—which is nothing to do with blankets or bed but means the force which the French Armies always hold of certain divisions completely free of the duty of training conscripts, and completely free to stand between any invader and France while mobilisation takes place.
There is a great deal of talk about mobilisation in 90 days. The other day General Eisenhower said that unless there is action or reaction in 60 days the cause is lost. There is one outstanding thing from what has been said in the last four days of debate on defence and the Army, and that is the absence of this force in Western Europe which would help to stem any immediate action—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman is now going too wide. He must confine himself to numbers.

Mr. Fraser: We are alarmed by the absence of organised numbers in formations in Western Europe. We have seen these difficulties, and we are concerned. It is all very well for the seafaring Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Defence to dance their sailor's hornpipes, shanties and ritual dances, which do not so much as break their extravagant silences about what the formations are. We have never had more startling silence than about what these formations are, and about the numbers which are coordinated into groups of defenders or divisions. The Government really should do something to assuage these fears of the landlocked public. The period of transition has gone on long enough, and the time has come when we should have some reassurances that there is some sort of cover for mobilisation.
We are alerted by four salient factors. The first is that the Regular content of the Army is not increasing fast enough. With the ending of the bounty scheme the men who joined up in 1945 will be coming out in 1950, and the danger is that there will be even a diminution in the regular content of the Army when that time comes. The second factor is that with the Atlantic Pact and with the necessity to have the necessary trained men for Western Europe—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is out of Order to discuss either Western Union or the

Atlantic Pact. The hon. Member must confine himself to the numbers of British troops.

Mr. Fraser: We have that background even though it may be a bit out of Order; indeed, we have that disordered background. We find that the Colonial troops have rapidly diminished from 151,000 to 92,000, which means more British troops outside Europe, and thirdly we are further alarmed by the fact that in two years there has been a steady decline in the Regular Reserves from 71,000 to 50,000. Finally, we are alerted by the fact that the average period of conscript service will fall from 27 months to 18, between now and July, 1950. In fact, the intake of conscripts does not seem to be tailored to the needs of the Army but rather that the size of the Army is distorted to absorb the intake of the conscripts. We might say that the Government are giving way to political or legalistic arguments, but we believe that this situation is due more to the Government's long-term aim to create a large Army by 1954.
The fact is that while this transitional period goes on there is no organisation in the Army such as the French Army have long learned to be essential for European mobilisation. The most immediate trouble seems to be that the Government are putting the cart before the horse by having too few regulars to train too many conscripts. It is difficult to criticise without having the full facts, but we believe that something can be done to meet the situation. The trouble is that there has been a barrage of silence on the part of the Minister of Defence and the Ministers of the three Services, a silence which has exceeded even that of the silent Service to which both the right hon. seafaring naval Gentlemen seem to have oversubscribed.
We believe that something might be done to make what is already a selective service even more selective. Instead of the present system, higher tests of intelligence and health should be instituted. Only the best would be accepted. There is no question that that would lead to a stimulation of morale of the Forces. There would be advantage, I suggest, in raising the character and calibre of those conscripted. Instead of absorbing 120,000 absorb, say, 80,000. It seems to me obvious that there would be less overburdening of training cadres and it would


allow 40,000 troops to go into regular field formations, something which the French believe in as cover for divisions prepared for war.
The more serious political question, however, is selective service itself. The service is in any case selective, but instead of making it selective as a result of death, disease or emigration, why not make it a service which is controlled by the intention of the Government? Why not see that the Army gets what it wants, instead of the Army having to fit in the men which Parliament decides it should have? Taking the figures for the whole of the Forces, in 1931 there were born 371,000 males who will be called up this year, 1949. The proportion who will enter the Army is, I think, 11–16ths.
Of these, at the end of 1949 the number actually selected into the Forces will be about 145,000. By the end of 1949, of these 371,000, 300,000 have survived; death, disease and emigration have taken their toll. The number deferred is 110,000 so, finally, when sickness has stepped in, there are 145,000 of the 300,000 available—purely by chance. I have worked out that the chance of a baby being called up is in fact 5 to 2 against. The chance of a grown and healthy youth being deferred is 6 to 4 against and the chance of any youth, whether sick or not, being deferred is 11 to 10 on, or of joining the Army 11 to 10 against. The whole thing is selective, and I plead that instead of selection being purely fortuitous, so-called democratic, there should be purposeful selection by those who are now trying to run our military affairs. If this could be done I believe that we should see, throughout the Army, a wide increase in morale and efficiency.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Early in the Debate the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said that the Estimates before the House today were largely obsolete because of the Atlantic Pact—

Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Member was speaking in the Debate on the Navy Estimates, when there was a wider discussion than can be the case now. This is a narrower Debate, on Vote A, than the Debate on the other two Services.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: This Debate, I understand, has to deal with the number of men we are voting for the Army this year—over half a million. If I had been in Order I would have followed the argument of the hon. and learned Member, but in view of what you have just said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will not pursue it. This is a very large number of men and we are not justified in approving this Vote tonight, because the Government do not know what to do with the men.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Whether the number of men be large or small is not relevant or in Order in this Debate.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: There has been such an aura of secrecy about this Vote that hon. Members have found it difficult to make up their minds whether these demands are justified. I want to complain about this secrecy. In one Debate in this House we were told by the Government, with a great air of self-righteousness, that there are no secret agreements about the—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member persists in discussing anything except the number of men I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want to refer to the steps that are being taken to recruit these men, and particularly to the failure to get the required number of men. A large amount of public money is being asked for to raise the numbers, and to continue this recruiting campaign in the forthcoming year on the lines that it has been conducted during the past year is, in my opinion, unjustified. We ought not to vote sums of money in order to get the requisite number of men.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Neither is there any reference to money in this Vote.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: A number of men I presume are to be recruited, and my criticism is of the recruiting campaign methods employed to get the numbers. I leave the question of money out of it.
In the view of a large number of Service men who are competent to speak on these matters, this recruiting campaign has been a flop. The methods used should be dropped because they have not succeeded in attracting the necessary numbers. That has been abundantly demonstrated by the secrecy which has


surrounded this matter during the last week. Had the numbers of recruits been obtained by this method, that information would by now be available to this House. We in this House should be informed of the results of the campaign. We should be told whether the oratorical efforts of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Leader of the Opposition and the other speakers who participated in the campaign have been successful. Is it not time that we knew exactly what has been the exact result of this particular activity? If it has not been a successful activity, I suggest it should be dropped, and the manpower devoted to this effort more suitably used in some other respects. Take, for example, the Secretary of State for War. I do not know whether he has been made aware of his unfortunate visit—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman made a speech on this point on the Committee stage. The reason why this Debate is so narrow tonight is because of the width of the Debate then. The hon. Member cannot say now what he said on that occasion, because it is out of Order.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I was not going to refer to anything I said in the Committee stage. I was going to say that if this campaign is to be treated with any respect at all it should not be the subject of humorous comment on the Welsh wireless. I have been told that the signature tune of the Secretary of State for War has ceased to be "Onward Christian Soldiers" and has become "Aberystwyth."
The recruiting campaign has been ridiculous. The Under-Secretary of State for War came along and said that my constituency was one of the districts where there had been the biggest response. I feel that I should make a correction. I have consulted my colleague the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), who takes an entirely different view of this matter from myself. He has taken an active part in organising the recruiting campaign. Nevertheless, he agrees that, in the county of Ayr the campaign has been an absolute flop. The Secretary of State for War uses certain percentages, and he referred to a certain map. I would like the War Office to place this map in the Library. It shows how the

recruiting campaign is progressing in the different parts of the country. The Secretary of State told us that on this map Ayrshire is coloured red. I believe he has got hold, not of the recruiting figures but of a map from Transport House of the result in South Ayrshire after the next General Election. That is not to be confused with the recruiting figures. After the searchlight of criticism that has been thrown on the recruiting campaign from all sides of the House the time has now come when the campaign should be abandoned. I do not know what the War Office is coming along for next. I do not think there is any end to the huge increase in the manpower demands. I can see that next year—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will see that the Estimate is for this year and not the next year.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: All that I hope is that next year there will be a far greater attempt made to convince us that this is a reasonable demand, and that these 500,000 men who are being taken away from industry and put into the Army are being used in the best possible way for the service of the country.

8.47 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I want to raise only one point very quickly indeed on this matter of numbers. I hope that we shall receive from the Parliamentary Secretary some statement on the subject of the Royal Armoured Corps and on the numbers which have been enlisted for it. How many men have been enlisted for the Royal Scots Greys? We did not get the figure last time. I hope we shall get it this time.
On the subject of Infantry I see that Vote A says, under a heading "Foot Guards":
The Guardsman is no longer enlisted into a particular regiment, but into the Brigade as a whole, though he may choose the regiment with which he wishes to serve.
He may choose. That is excellent. Why should not a Guardsman choose where he is going? Why should a Scotsman or a Welshman be drafted into an English Guards regiment? As infantry of the line, we are on quite a different footing. It says in this Vote:
During the war, as an emergency measure, in order to obtain the flexibility necessary to maintain an even flow of reinforcements, this limitation had to be suspended.


In other words, a man could not have his previous right of being transferred from one regiment to another. In wartime that must be so. The pargraph goes on:
In order to retain this greater flexibility for the future, infantry regiments have been organised into 14 groups of Territorial or traditional affinity, including the Brigade of Guards. Each regiment retains its identity within its group, but the soldier may be posted to any regiment in the group.
While we are on the subject of numbers and in view of the fact that we want to see the numbers fully recruited, may I assure the Minister that we shall never get the numbers where we want them unless we return to the system whereby a man might enlist for the part of the country to which he belongs and to which his father and grandfather belonged, whether it is in England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales? You must have that system in peace-time as well as in wartime. Everybody will agree that in wartime we must make exceptions but I hope that we shall get some assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that in stepping up the numbers which we want and the country needs, he will revert to the principle whereby the county or the area is the basis of recruitment and the man enlists for a particular regiment and will serve with that regiment.
We are all agreed that the Women's Royal Army Corps, which is dealt with in Page 14, Vote A, is a new departure in peace-time to which the country has not been accustomed. Although perhaps some of the more old-fashioned of us do not quite like the idea of women soldiers in peace-time we hope that as the Corps has been established its members will be the finest that can be produced from the womanhood of our country. I hope that there will be nothing more of the type of thing which we see in the evening papers tonight of members of the Women's Royal Army Corps taking the oath of allegiance en masse, standing at ease and looking as though they were singing a hymn on church parade. That is not the way to increase the numbers of the Women's Royal Army Corps. They must be treated as soldiers if they wish to be in the Army. So far as I know soldiers do not take the oath in a heap or standing at ease. The soldier stands to attention then, even if he never

does so during the rest of his service. I hope that the women will do the same.

8.51 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) has not remained for an answer. If he had done so on a previous occasion, when we were considering these Estimates in Committee, he would not have required to raise a number of points which he has raised this evening. He asked a question which has been asked so often—what is the connection between these numbers and formations and divisions? Hon. Members will recollect that that matter was fully discussed. My right hon. Friend, at the conclusion of his speech in presenting the Army Estimates to the House in Committee, asked the House on that occasion what they wanted him to do. Was the Army to abandon its overseas commitments to bring every man home for the purpose of creating formations? I would ask hon. Members to remember that the Army is at present carrying out, all over the world, a number of difficult commitments, which are expensive in manpower.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is bound by the same Rules of Order as are other hon. Members, and as other hon. Members cannot go into that matter he cannot do so.

Mr. Stewart: With great respect, I am merely answering points which were made by the hon. Member for Stone. I assumed that as he was able to raise the question I should be entitled to reply.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member will recollect that I stopped the hon. Member for Stone as soon as I realised that he was going outside the scope of the Debate.

Mr. Stewart: Then I will certainly not pursue that point.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), I might perhaps comment on the fact that we are at the moment dealing with a Vote for men for the Regular Army. Many of the hon. Gentleman's remarks referred to recruiting for the Territorial Army—not that I wish to encourage him to make them again when we are dealing with the Vote for the Territorial Army. It is surprising and deplorable that my hon.
Friend and his colleague the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), my hon. Friend apparently through dislike of Army Estimates and the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs presumably through dislike of this Government, have managed to reach a conclusion about recruiting in the County of Ayrshire which is at variance with the facts. For the credit of the County of Ayrshire I should like to say that Ayrshire's recruiting compares very favourably—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not wish to say anything about myself but in justice to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs I feel that I should say that he has done everything possible for the recruiting campaign, and has not allowed any opposition he may have to the Government to interfere with his activities in that respect.

Mr. Stewart: I am well aware of that but if the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs imagines that his efforts in that county have not resulted in success he is mistaken. I am glad to say that that county has done very well.
I turn to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). I wonder what he wants us to do over this question of the infantry. Does he wish us to abolish the infantry group system entirely? If so, I will put this to him. The nature of modern warfare is such that the proportion which the infantry bear to the whole of the Armed Forces is necessarily smaller than it used to be. One must therefore maintain very much larger Armed Forces, which would be a burden beyond what it is reasonable to place on the economy of this country, or, on the other hand, the number of infantrymen must be less.
That being so, it was not possible to maintain in existence regiments which we previously had, and, at the same time, to have the Cardwell system. We were therefore faced with the prospect of reducing the number of battalions in a regiment or disbanding a certain number of regiments in order to keep the remaining number on the Cardwell basis. That would be a possible alternative to the group system. There are certain drawbacks to the group system, but our evidence is that it is not as unpopular as was suggested by the

hon. and gallant Gentleman. I think that most soldiers in the Army today realise that the only alternatives are the ones that I have mentioned, and that there would probably be some system more distasteful than the one in force at present.
It is true that many men joining the Army have in mind a connection with a particular part of the country from which they and their forbears come, but, strong as that feeling is in the minds of many men, there are also a considerable number who are attracted into the Army functionally as well as territorially; that is to say, they are interested in doing a particular kind of useful job in the Army, and are more concerned with the opportunities to do that job, for which they feel themselves to be specially skilled and equipped, than with any territorial connection. Today, we are building up an Army which appeals both to the territorial loyalty and to that kind of craft and professional loyalty, and there is scope for both. When we weigh up all the facts I have mentioned—the need for flexibility, the fact that the infantry does not and cannot bulk so large in the total of Armed Forces as previously—I think we shall all come to the conclusion that what we have got is the fairest balance.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: What the hon. Gentleman says justifies what we have been saying—that the infantry is the most important arm of the Service and that all the others are the servants of the infantry, because the infantryman is the one who has to get there first and hold the ground. Is it not better to have infantrymen who have joined up because they love the regiments with which they have always been associated, and thereby obtain more of them, or is it the view that we do not need to have an efficient infantry?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been listening to what I have been saying.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Every word.

Mr. Stewart: If the total number of the Armed Forces is limited, as it is, by what the economy of the country can afford, and if the proportion of infantry to the total of the Armed Forces is determined, as it is, by the nature of modern war, that gives us a certain number of infantry. In


order to retain flexibility, we cannot have the number of regiments which we now have and work the Cardwell system. I am bound to say that the situation is more fully understood by many people in the Army than it is by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Sir Ian Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman had enough infantrymen, or if he did not want as many battalions as there are counties, there would be something in his argument, but is either of those circumstances true?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman's first suggestion was that we were not getting enough infantry. Am I correct in assuming that that was his suggestion?

Sir I. Fraser: Yes.

Mr. Stewart: No, it would not be correct to make that assumption.

Sir I. Fraser: Does the hon. Gentleman want more battalions than there are counties, or less?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is not following the point at all. The point is that in view of the total number of infantry which it is reasonable in present circumstances to have, we must either have what we have at present, a certain number of regiments working on a one battalion basis, and then, in order to get sufficient flexibility, an infantry group system, or we might conceivably disband a large number of the regiments and return to what is known as the Cardwell system, or, again, we might make the whole of the infantry of the line into a single corps. Faced with those alternatives, we have chosen what I think is the correct one.

Colonel Gomne-Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that we are not getting the figures under this system? What we are trying to suggest is a system by which we should get the men. Whether they be flexible or inflexible, we have not got them, and we want to get them.

Mr. Stewart: I am not sure whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman means that we simply want infantry or a certain size Regular Army. A certain size Regular Army would limit the number of infantry required. If we compare the

infantry with the other arms, we find that its recruiting difficulty is not so serious. As has been pointed out on more than one occasion in this House, one of the reasons why our recruiting propaganda takes the form it does, is because we have very considerable difficulty in recruiting for the technical arms.
Reference was also made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the Royal Scots Greys. It is our endeavour, as far as possible, to link men with the regiments with which they have a territorial, local or family connection. But it is not always possible to do that. We may get an influx of men from a certain locality or from certain parts of Scotland which, at a particular time, is more than the regiments to which they would like to go can take. When that happens it is necessary to send some of them elsewhere. At a later period we may get a reverse situation. That is the situation with which we are faced at the present time. I know that this problem of linking men as far as possible with the regiments for which they have an affection and tradition is of considerable importance, and if we can find any way of reducing the amount of discontent that arises from this matter, we shall certainly avail ourselves of it.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I am sorry to get up so often, but, on the point of the Royal Scots Greys, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House—I am sure his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is going to back me up—that English, Irish or Welsh recruits to the Royal Armoured Corps will not be sent to the Royal Scots Greys so long as there are any Scottish recruits waiting to go there? Will he give that assurance?

Mr. Stewart: No, I am afraid I cannot give such an assurance. I see I shall not convince the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Nor
Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: What I am saying is that if we can find a way of maintaining the Army as an efficient force, at the same time bearing in mind this point of view, we shall do so. The hon. and gallant Member also mentioned the Women's Royal Army Corps. I have not seen the evening paper in which, if


it is correct, this unfortunate episode was reported. When I see certain reports in the papers I am in the habit of first checking up on their accuracy and then commenting on them afterwards. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is a photograph."] I do not think that the House will wish me to comment on that question further, but I would assure the hon. and gallant Member that we are very much aware of the value of the Women's Royal Army Corps to the Force as a whole.
Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air to the many ways, both direct and indirect, in which a women's force is of value in the Armed Forces, and everything that he has said about that in connection with the Royal Air Force applies with equal or even greater force to the Army. If hon. Members are concerned about the point raised by the hon. Member for Stone, so far as I may refer to it without getting out of order, I would counsel them to look at the concluding passages of my right hon. Friend's speech when he was introducing the Army Estimates in Committee. He will there find that we are aware of the points which he has raised, and that the steps which will meet the very natural alarm which he has expressed are in train.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by Mr. Shinwell, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. John Dug-dale, Mr. Michael Stewart and Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

"to provide, during twelve months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1949–50

[10th March]

VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY

Resolution reported:
That a sum, not exceeding £94,250,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army which

will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

9.7 p.m.

Colonel Dower: I rise for only a few minutes, and I do so because, as the Minister knows, I am going to be one of those unfortunate people who will have to face the problems which arise when the National Service men are drafted back to the Territorials. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to be as careful as he possibly can to post the men, when they come back, to units of the same branch of the Service in which they have been trained in the Regular Army, so that we may have a chance of controlling them. We shall only see them for 15 days in the year at camp, and it is not really fair if they are not conversant with the branch of their service; in addition, all the equipment which the right hon. Gentleman is producing will probably get smashed up.
I am pleased to say that another thousand or two have been added to the 69,000, making a total of 71,000 out of the target of 150,000 to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. There are three points to which I would like him to give attention. The bounty of £12 is not enough. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that these recruits must be voluntary and that no one should join with the intention of making money, but this bounty could be raised to £16 or £20 without enabling anybody to get away with any money in his private pocket. My second point is this. I have been a Regular officer and I am now a Territorial officer. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have some Territorial officers who recognise the peculiar problems of the Territorial Army to advise him. Thirdly, will he see that the publicity, posters, and pamphlets are improved? I do not say that they are bad; I do not wish to overstate my case, but there is room for improvement in the publicity which is going out to the public, and if we want to do our job when the men come back from their national service we must give some attention to this point. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to answer me at the moment,


but as one who hopes to be actively engaged in these tasks may I say I am sure he will consider the points I have made?

9.10 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I want to ask once more for some assurance on the pay and allowances of British officers of Gurkha regiments in the British Army. They are still gravely dissatisfied with their conditions and it is recognised by most people outside the War Office that they have had a very unfair deal. We want to get the best men for this excellent corps, which is now part of the British Army, and to see that those now serving in it are satisfied with their conditions. They are not satisfied at present, and justifiably so. I hope we shall get some assurance on this matter.

9.11 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): I shall reply briefly to the points made by the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) and the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and Kinross (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth raised the question of the posting of National Service men to their units as and when they undertake their Territorial Reserve liability. So far as is practicable, it is our intention to see that they are posted to the units nearest to their own homes. That step will be taken though, of course, there may be some physical difficulty which may limit our taking the right steps. Turning to the question of assisting the Territorial Army by giving the proper guidance and the provision of the right technique, as the hon. and gallant Member is aware we are largely in the hands of the Territorial Forces Associations, but their activities are supplemented by Regular officers including the Army commanders and the chiefs-of-staff in each of the Commands. There is no reason to believe they are without the requisite knowledge of what is required. There are, of course, other difficulties to which we are addressing ourselves at the present time and with which we shall continue to deal with a sense of urgency.
The subject of the bounty has been discussed on previous occasions and, at any rate at present, I doubt whether we

can reconsider our decision. I am well aware that there has been some criticism on the subject of publicity. It is very difficult to seize upon the right kind of publicity because there are varying opinions as to what is best. My idea of publicity might vary a great deal from that of the hon. and gallant Member and, indeed, there are differences of opinion even amongst publicity experts, but we have done our best to bring the need for recruiting men and women for the Territorial Army before the public. We have enlisted the services of many prominent people and have had the full cooperation of the Press. But we have not reached the end of the day so far as the provision of Territorials is concerned and we shall, no doubt, use further publicity methods in order to reach the desired target. I have at present under consideration additional publicity methods which I hope we can soon employ.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered doing now what used to be done before the war, namely, having substantial military displays at great gathering centres, like the Highland games in parts of Scotland? They did a great deal of good.

Mr. Shinwell: As hon. Members are aware, we have had a considerable number of these displays up and down the country and some of them have been highly commendable, but it is extremely doubtful whether these displays, however spectacular, materially assist in bringing in a large number of recruits. In my view the best recruiting agent for the Territorial Army is the man who has already joined it and who, if he is happy and contented and believes being in the Territorial Army is worth while, will induce his friends to join. We are doing something in that connection. On our suggestion the Chief of the Imperial General Staff has sent a letter to every member of the Territorial Army commending him or her for having enlisted and asking for their assistance in bringing in other recruits. We may adopt similar methods in the future.

Brigadier Peto: On the subject of publicity, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the necessity of seeing that the B.B.C. should not give out such plays as the play to which


I would call his attention, "The Independence of Daniel Thwaite" which was broadcast on 12th February or thereabouts? It is of all plays to which I have ever listened the most calculated to stop people joining the Army or the Territorial Army.

Mr. Shinwell: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware, we have no control over the B.B.C. We can, of course, make suggestions to the B.B.C., but we cannot go beyond that. I did not hear the broadcast to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers, but I would deplore any tendentious broadcasts or utterances on the B.B.C. or elsewhere which might militate against recruitment for the Territorial Army. We shall in future, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, watch what happens. But let me say this to hon. Gentlemen about this matter of recruitment. It bears not only on the Territorial Army but on the Regular Army. We can get men for the Regular Army or the Territorial Army only out of one reservoir in the country—out of the manpower available. Clearly, National Service—and National Service, in all the circumstances—I need not repeat what was said on previous occasions—is inescapable—prevents us from raising the required men for the Territorial Army, when they are enlisted for National Service. If the reservoir is contracted because of National Service, obviously both the Regular Army and the Territorial Army are adversely affected, and we must do our best in those difficult circumstances.
As to the subject of the conditions of officers in the Gurkha Brigade, I should like to pay my tribute to the Gurkha Brigade particularly for the assistance they are rendering us in the Far East. As regards the position of officers, so far as I am aware the conditions are similar to the conditions of officers in the British Army—so far as I know; there may be some variation because of their overseas conditions. However, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) that we are well aware of the conditions of which many officers have complained, and although we believe that, relatively speaking, their conditions are not altogether unsatisfactory, if we can provide certain modifications, or minor easements—I would not put it higher than

that: minor easements—that may make the conditions appear to be more satisfactory, we shall certainly do so.
Question, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

VOTE 2. RESERVE FORCES, TERRITORIAL ARMY AND CADETS FORCES

Resolution reported
That a sum, not exceeding £12,460,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 45.000, all ranks, for the Royal Army Reserve and 6,000, all ranks, for the Supplementary Reserve), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 150,000, all ranks) and Cadet Forces, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Vane: I should like to ask one question about Sub-Head E (1). There is a substantial increase in the amount of money for pay. What figure is the right hon. Gentleman aiming at in the Territorial Army? I cannot find out from the Explanatory Notes.

Sir Ian Fraser: Is there any Territorial officer who has served as a Territorial for any length of time in any high office or the War Office where his advice can be made available to the Secretary of State or the Army Council?

Mr. Harden: Lately there has been an order to increase the allowance given to officers joining the Territorial regiments to £21 for uniform. There is a good deal of ill-feeling because that was not retrospective to those who joined earlier. When I was with my Territorial Regiment on Sunday, the officers were even talking about resigning over this matter. It is like the petty thing about Income Tax which got a certain amount of publicity.

Mr. Shinwell: On the subject of uniform allowance, a Question is on the. Order Paper for tomorrow, and I hope that the answer given then will satisfy the hon. Member. With regard to the numbers which we are aiming at for the Territorial Army, as hon. Members are aware, we decided at the War Office several months ago to fix a target of 150,000. We have not yet reached that target, but we are not without hope that


during the summer we shall substantially increase the numbers for the Territorial Army, largely as the result of the annual training camp period. With regard to the question asked by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), I can tell him that we have now at the War Office, as Director of the Territorial Army, Major-General Herbert, who was recently in charge of the District in Berlin and who rendered splendid service there. Major-General Herbert was himself associated with the Territorial Army several years ago.

Sir I. Fraser: No criticism is contemplated on any officer such as the gallant General to whom reference has been made, but the point is that neither of them are in fact territorials. Would it not help the War Office to have one or two persons who have served with the Territorials at some point where the Army Council could gain experience and learn from them?

Mr. Shinwell: We do quite well with all the qualified Territorial officers in the country, and we are not without guidance in these matters; but if it is necessary to obtain further guidance for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the Territorial Army, there is nothing that I know of that will stand in the way.

Mr. Frank Byers: Would the right hon. Gentleman resist these attempts to suggest that people like Major-General Herbert, a very gallant and wise officer, is not the right person to be in charge of the Territorial Army at this moment?

Mr. Shinwell: So far as I know, the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) did not cast any aspersion on Major-General Herbert. It was, in my view, a quite proper question to put, and I make no complaint about it. All the high ranking officers at the War Office are, in my judgment, highly qualified.
Question, "That the House doth agree with the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Resolutions reported:

VOTE 8. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS

"That a sum, not exceeding £23,600,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950."

VOTE 10. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

"That a sum, not exceeding £15,700,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950."

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1948–49

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £55,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year."

[For details of the Vote see OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 1593.]

Resolutions agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1948–49.

[17th March]

Resolutions reported:

CLASS II

VOTE 2. DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR ESTABLISHMENTS, ETC.

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,801,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid: and sundry other services."

CLASS I

VOTE 2. HOUSE OF COMMONS

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £41,955, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the House of Commons, including a grant in aid of the Kitchen Committee."

VOTE 12. GOVERNMENT HOSPITALITY

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £60,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for a grant in aid of the Government Hospitality Fund."

CLASS VI

VOTE 1. BOARD OF TRADE

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,529,820, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy


Council for Trade and subordinate departments, including the cost of certain trading services; assistance and subsidies to certain industries, certain grants in aid; and other services."

Resolutions agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Resolution reported:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £121,876,789, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for expenditure in respect of the Supplementary Estimates.

[For details of Vote, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2415–6.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

9.25 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I should just like to point out that under the new system we have had exactly six minutes before the Guillotine falls on the Supplementary Estimates, so that the Debate for Which we have asked the Minister of Food to be present has had to be postponed. However, I should like to give him due notice—as I think this is the appropriate time—that we propose to try to get such a Debate at the earliest possible moment, because not only did we wish to discuss how it was that there is such a great increase demanded by the Supplementary Estimate on the trading accounts of his Department, but as the trading accounts covered the question of meat supplies we were proposing to ask him further questions about the deplorable position in which we are with regard to the meat ration. Last Monday I am afraid I had to use certain words about the right hon. Gentleman's administration, saying that there was muddle, miscalculation and mismanagement. I hope I shall not have to do so every Monday, but certainly the same thing is as true today when discussing the meat ration as it was last Monday when discussing the Groundnut Scheme. It is much too late to go into this question today, and I can only express the hope that the negotiations which I understand are now going on will be successful.
I cannot expect the right hon. Gentleman to give any reply now, but perhaps in the remaining minute he would have an opportunity of saying regretfully that

his right hon. Friend was wrong in the reply she gave the other day about the payments, because when I asked her from recollection whether, in fact, we had not paid in advance for all the meat which was to be covered by the contract she said no, that we had only paid for what we got. I should like to be reassured whether she is right or I am right, because under, I think it is, Clause 4 (a) of the Andes Agreement we pledged ourselves and undertook to pay, not only the £100 million in advance, but also an extra sum of £10 million, which was the subject of discussion at the time. Now, I had assumed that we had carried out the agreement, and if I am wrong and the right hon. Lady was right I think the House ought to know clearly. I think it probably was just a mistake in her memory, speaking from the Front Bench without notice. If that is so, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be glad of the opportunity of putting that right. As to the further matters that we want to discuss, I give him warning that we shall take a very early opportunity to do so.

9.29 p.m.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I am very glad the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has told us that we shall have an opportunity to discuss this Estimate, because we welcome that very much, and we have been somewhat disappointed that on neither of these two occasions has time allowed this discussion to take place.

Captain Crookshank: So have I.

Mr. Strachey: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, we have simply had the somewhat monotonous reiterations on Mondays of his views on my Department, and we should very much like to have the opportunity of showing, quite frankly, what nonsense those reiterations are.

Captain Crookshank: So would the housewives, particularly on meat.

Mr. Strachey: On the one subject which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised, the Andes payments on meat, I can tell the House very shortly the position there. As I understand it—and this is what my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said—the amount of meat which we shall receive —some of it late, but we shall receive it


in the end—has been paid for, but we shall not suffer any financial loss by the fact that Argentina is in arrears in time on the shipments of the meat. It is extremely unfortunate, and we deplore it and detest very much that they are in arrears in time and in quantity, but we shall not suffer financial loss.

Captain Crookshank: But the right hon. Lady said:
We have only paid for the meat which has come in."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2304.]
That cannot be true.

It being after half past Nine o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply) to put the Question necessary to dispose of the Resolution under consideration.

Question "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution" put, and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith, with respect to each Resolution ordered to be reported by the Committee of Supply and not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution."

CIVIL (EXCESSES), 1947–48

"That a sum, not exceeding £9,597 3s. 6d. be granted to His Majesty, to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1948."

[For details of Excess, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2415–6.]

Resolution agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1948–49.

[17th February]

CLASS V

VOTE 2. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, ENGLAND AND WALES

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £52,800,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the expenses of providing a comprehensive health service in England and Wales and certain other services connected therewith, including the central purchase of medical supplies."

put, and agreed to.

CLASS II

VOTE 10. COLONIAL OFFICE

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies and the salary of the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs."

put, and agreed to.

Resolutions agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1948–49.

[24th February]

CLASS II

VOTE 11. COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,695,010, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain non-effective services and grants in aid."

VOTE 12. WEST AFRICAN PRODUCE CONTROL BOARD

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the West African Produce Control Board, including the cost of trading services; and for grants in aid of sums equivalent to accumulated profits realised under the West African cocoa control scheme for allocation to the Governments of the Gold Coast, Nigeria and Sierra Leone, and to accumulated funds under the West African oils and oilseeds control scheme for allocation to those Governments and the Government of the Gambia."

put, and agreed to.

VOTE 13. DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE (COLONIES, ETC.)

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,950,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the development of the resources of colonies, protectorates, protected states and mandated territories, and the welfare of their peoples."

CLASS V

VOTE 7. NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BOARD

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,710,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the salaries and


expenses of the Department of the National Assistance Board and of certain Appeal Tribunals and Pension Committees; non-contributory Old Age Pensions, including pensions to blind persons; Supplementary Pensions to certain persons in receipt of Old Age Pensions or Widows' Pensions; allowances to applicants for assistance, etc.; assistance grants; the expenses of re-establishment centres, reception centres, etc.; and the expenses of maintaining certain classes of Poles in Great Britain."

Resolutions agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

[17th March]

Resolutions reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1948, the sum of £9,597 3s. 6d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, the sum of £308,371,574 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950, the sum of £1,210,643,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolutions agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Glenvil Hall.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL

"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight, one thousand nine hundred and forty-nine and one thousand nine hundred and fifty"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

BLITZED AREAS (STEEL ALLOCATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "that this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The subject I wish to raise tonight

is the question of the allocation of steel to blitzed towns to aid them in their reconstruction. I had hoped when I secured the Adjournment to raise certain matters concerned with dockyards and particularly with Devonport dockyards, but following a discussion with those who represent the City of Plymouth I agreed that it was more urgent to raise this matter. I hope the Admiralty will not assume that they are being let off from any discussion of dockyards which is a subject that will be raised at frequent intervals in the House. The subject of the allocation of steel for blitzed towns is a question with which my hon. Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland) has been particularly concerned. He has an intimate knowledge of the affairs of the reconstruction work in Plymouth and has been approaching Government Departments in this connection for some time past. A few weeks ago he had the chance of raising the question of the allocation of steel in the House, but unfortunately, the House "collapsed" rather suddenly that night, and he was unable to do so. Tonight, however, I hope he will be fortunate enough in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker.
The question to which I wish to refer in particular is the allocation of steel for the City of Plymouth—a state of affairs which affects most of the other blitzed cities in Britain. We are more or less all in the same situation. We want to see our cities rebuilt. We have started to lay foundations in Plymouth, and we want to see the shops which were smashed during the blitz partly because we need them and partly because we need to build up our rateable value to relieve the economic and financial problem which faces the City Council. Plymouth has had to face very considerable difficulties. We have had assistance from the Government in this respect and, thanks to the skilful organisation of the finances of the city, by the City Council we have been able to restrict, at any rate, the increased rate which has been imposed. But if we are not able to get ahead in the next year or two with rebuilding the city centre and shops an increasing financial burden will be put on the citizens of Plymouth, simply because of the difficulties which the city encountered during the war and the foremost part which it played during, those years.
We are concerned that there shall be a proper supply of steel with which to rebuild our shops. A statement was made at the end of last year about the allocation of steel to blitzed cities when we were promised what was described by the Government as a token amount of steel. Certainly, the amount cannot be regarded as anything other than a token quantity. I believe that the total provided for all blitzed cities was about 5,000 tons this year. Out of that we, in Plymouth, received 750 tons. We want to see that amount increased as quickly as possible. We understand the difficulties facing the Government in allocating steel and realise the necessity for ensuring that it is used in the most useful way for the nation as a whole. We have had some of our share of steel to help build new factories, and we are grateful for that allocation. Although we know there is still a great shortage of steel, despite increased steel production, we think the Government should be able to give blitzed cities an idea of the amount of steel we are likely to have in the future.
We are concerned not so much with raising the immediate allocation as ensuring that from the time we start to go ahead there will be a steady and expanding supply of steel so that there will be no hold up in the rebuilding programme. There is a possibility of a hold up occurring; at any rate, there is uncertainty as to whether the supply of steel will increase in future and this is affecting the course which traders will take in rebuilding the city. That is the general proposition on which we hope the Government will make a statement which will encourage our traders to go ahead, as far as possible, with their rebuilding plans. We have made a big start in Plymouth; we have a record of which we are very proud. We have built a great number of houses and factories since the war. We are reconstructing the centre of our city. Our citizens can see the Corporation carrying into effect the model which we have in our city library and which is constantly being seen by school children. We have made a very big start and there has been assistance from Government Departments. We hope the Economic Secretary will be able to give us further encouragement in this great task.

Colonel Dower: I have complete sympathy with

the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) on the question of Plymouth, but I should like him to make it clear that he is not asking for preferential treatment for Plymouth over other blitzed cities.

Mr. Foot: We are not asking for that at all. It happens that in Plymouth on the whole—I am not saying it boastfully but as a matter of fact—we started our plan earlier. We got much of it agreed to earlier, and the roads were built earlier, so that this concerns Plymouth first in one sense. We are further ahead and we will go ahead quickly when we get the facilities. We have every sympathy with other blitzed cities, and the plea we are making tonight is not on account of one city, but concerns the allocation for all blitzed cities.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Medland: The object we have in view tonight is to get from the Government some declaration of their policy for blitzed areas, particularly the allocation of basic materials for the reconstruction of those areas. So far as we have been able to discover, the Government have made no distinction whatever between the towns which have been badly knocked about during the war and the towns which were fortunate enough to escape damage. I am referring now to factory reconstruction, which in our area has been impeded because of the failure to get some special consideration inasmuch as we have been blitzed. The same allocation is made to a town which has suffered no worse damage as to a town, which has its business centre wiped out, 20,000 people of its population of 200,000 made homeless, lost 22 schools, and suffered other damage, including the loss of its municipal offices and public library. That is the position in which Plymouth found itself. We say that in those circumstances the Government must have some different standard of allocation of basic building materials than prevails for the ordinary town.
One of our difficulties is that of replacing some of the factories which are at present in temporary premises in the area which we want to develop. I would beg the Economic Secretary or the Minister of Works to take this matter into consideration.
We went to much trouble in 1941 to get Sir Patrick Abercrombie to give us a brand new plan for a brand new city. We have found that we must move some of those temporary factories out to the fringes of the city in order to make our roads in accordance with the plan. No consideration has been given to us in that respect at all. I ask that we should have some special consideration for blitzed cities, where a city has a definite plan for rebuilding and where it has to move factories which might not be of vital importance. We have suffered war wounds and we want the assistance of the Government to help us to recover from our wounds. We can only do that if we move the factories. If we can have some consideration along these lines it will assist us very materially.
I want to speak about the allocation of steel. It was seen by some of us very early, in trying to rebuild the city, that the two main factors would be shortage of steel and timber. On those basic items I want to say a word or two. There was no steel allocation for blitzed cities until, in reply to a Question which was put by my colleague the hon. Member for the Sutton Division (Mrs. Middleton) on 1st February the Minister of Town and Country Planning announced that the Government, in accordance with a promise made to me by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade during an Adjournment Debate, had given the enormous amount of 5,540 tons of steel for the reconstruction of the blitzed areas of the country.
We are told that the output of the country today is something like 15½ million ingot tons of steel. I had to do a little sum. I asked the Economic Secretary in a Question if he would be good enough to tell me what proportion of the total amount of steel in the country had been allocated to the blitzed cities. He answered that they did not tell people things like that. When I worked it out I found the extent of the generosity of the Government towards the blitzed cities who had been in the front line during the war. Their people knew what it was to sit up night after night and have the bombs coming down. It was not a pleasant feeling, believe me. What is the magnificent allocation, eight years after that had happened? I found that it is 00034 of the total amount of steel that is produced. That is the generosity of the

Government towards the blitzed areas and the working cities. I think we deserve more consideration than that.
Before we received this allocation we had been pursuing our plans. We had negotiated, obtained and prepared about 160 building sites, we spent millions on the roads and 24 firms had indicated their willingness to sign a lease for sites on which to put up their buildings. Then came the announcement that out of the 5,540 tons we were to have 750 tons this year. It may or may not be enough; I am not grumbling about that. I am glad that we have got the 750 tons. I am inclined to think that it will be enough for this year, but that does not solve our problem.
Our problem was that we had to deal with a body of developers who would have to spend some millions of pounds in the erection of stores, business premises, offices, etc., developers who would have to spend a great deal of money. When they saw that the allocation was only 750 tons that put a stop to the negotiations for continuing the development. I felt a little angry when in Whitehall, along which I have to walk every day, I found that while the Government could only let us have 750 tons for our town and only 5,000 tons for the whole of the country, they were putting 13,000 tons of steel on one site for Government offices there. I can walk up the Haymarket and go to other places and see steel being used for I know not what purposes, but I know that it is not being used on a blitzed site or in a blitzed part of an area. Naturally I feel a little angry. I know that the Minister of Works has some views about this. He has told me about them.

Colonel Dower: Is the hon. Member aware that in the great erection being put up north of Grosvenor Square, goodness knows how many tons of steel are being used, whereas wooden beams or supports have had to be put up in blitzed buildings because steel could not be obtained?

Mr. Medland: I am not complaining about that. My complaint is based on the fact that I would like to have the same sort of policy adopted so far as we are concerned. I do not mind others getting steel so long as we get a quantity which will allow us to go on with our development. The point is that we want an assurance from the Government that


once the developers have signed the lease and commenced their building those developers will not be stopped; and that when they have built the basement and up to the first or second storey they will not be told that there is no allocation of steel or timber available, and that they must stop building.
What is most important for us, as in the rebuilding and reconstruction of any city or town, is that once the construction of a building begins it must be brought to completion without any stoppages. That has happened in the case of buildings in our area. I have figures here to show that the result of a stoppage increased the cost of a building by 30 per cent. The contract price for the whole building was £64,000. When the building had been constructed to the first storey the work was stopped by the refusal of a steel licence. The regional people eventually said, "You may build another storey." The architects looked into it, and said, "We cannot do it; we must finish the building." If they had done it in three stages, the building would have cost £104,000. As it was, the total cost was £79,000, and the original contract was for just under £60,000. We cannot go on doing things like that, expect private developers to come along, particularly with high building costs, and expect to get our cities rebuilt. It is because of that sort of thing that I am asking the Economic Secretary if he can give us an assurance that, once the licences have been granted and the work has been started, the building can go on to the completion, because such an assurance will be of great value to us.
One of the reasons why we are asking for this special consideration for the blitzed areas, is that the Government have altered their own financial policy towards the blitzed areas. In the first three years after the 1941 blitz, my own city, in order to enable us to keep going, received over £1 million in contributions from the Exchequer. It was necessary to pay us a million pounds to keep us going. In 1946–47, they gave us notice that they were going to stop that and that we should have to raise more money from the rates, because they were going to cut down the grant gradually. In 1946–47, they reduced it to £235,000; in 1947–48, it was £200,000; in 1948–49, £75,000; this year, it is £45,000, and next year,

which is the final one, we expect to receive only £25,000. These are grants in aid towards meeting our expenses.
The only way in which we can face up to these losses is by increasing our paying rateable value, and the only way in which we can increase our rateable value is to get licences for the rebuilding of that rateable value which pays best. Some rateable value does not pay, while shop property and offices pay very well.

Sir William Darling: What about the houses you are building?

Mr. Medland: We do not get very much rateable value out of building estates and so forth. When we add the administrative costs, the street lighting and other expenses, it is not a good proposition, like the rateable value of properties in the centre of the city. For that reason, if we are to face up to our liabilities, I beseech the Economic Secretary to give more consideration to our plea for increased allocations.
Finally, I want to ask for a reconsideration of the Government's policy on capital expenditure in the blitzed areas. At present, in regard to Government policy for their own offices, there is no difference between a devastated area and any other place. I am asking for special consideration for the devastated areas, because, under the new planning methods for rebuilding our blitzed cities, Government offices and other Government buildings in a garrison town like Plymouth are extremely important. What have the Government done? This is the sort of thing that really does annoy me.

It being Ten o'Clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

Mr. Medland: Under the Abercrombie-Watson plan, which has been exhibited in London and everywhere else, we put on one side a precinct for Government offices. Everybody agreed that we should have a Whitehall the same as London. But what have the Government done? They have made arrangements with the Pearl Assurance Company that when they have put up


their building—and they only put it up on the understanding that they made a profit of not less than 5 per cent.—

Colonel Dower: And it was not to be nationalised.

Mr. Medland: They did not ask for that, but I hope they will nationalise them. The Government made an arrangement with that company for the Inland Revenue and this, that, and the other, to go into their new building.

Sir W. Darling: They got the steel.

Mr. Medland: They will get the steel; that is what is worrying me. That may be all right for Government policy on capital expenditure, but it is time that we had an office other than a Nissen hut or a cottage for Inland Revenue, for National Assistance Boards, and this, that, and the other. It is also time that we had a decent Employment Exchange. But the worst point of all is the General Post Office. I beg my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench to consider this point. The Post Office, like everything else, went. Pound notes went up in flames by thousands on those nights, and Government securities went "west" as well. The Post Office went "west"; all of it went. So what did they do? They took a little draper's shop and today the General Post Office in my city is in that shop.
I have been asking about rebuilding a Post Office consistent with the dignity of the only city in the South-West of England, but I cannot get any satisfactory reassurance. We have had a lot of negotiations with the Post Office. We had a meeting, and the Assistant Postmaster-General came down to see us. We argued as to where the site for the new Post Office should be. We said, "You can have the best site in the city if only you will put up a building," because we are very tired of looking at desolation. It is eight years since we had a proper Post Office. So we agreed on a site. I am now asking the Economic Secretary, or whoever is responsible, to give the Postmaster-General the word to go, so that he can start making his plans and getting his building quantities right for the rebuilding of the General Post Office in the city of Plymouth. For goodness sake do not let us keep on going to a draper's shop for a 2½d.

stamp; let us go into a proper State building. I am asking for consideration of capital expenditure on this matter, and I hope that we shall have some kind of assurance that the devastated areas, wherever they may be, particularly in London and in Plymouth—I bracket the two together because I see the Minister of Works looking at me—will receive special consideration in the allocation of basic materials and of capital expenditure for Government offices.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Smith: I should like to support the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). He told the House that Plymouth has had an allocation of 750 tons of steel. He was scrupulously careful to say that he had no quarrel with that allocation. I am chiefly concerned with the city of Hull where the heavy damage is, perhaps, comparable with the damage done in Plymouth, and the allocation of steel to that city is only 250 tons. However, I do not complain about that. I wish to pay a tribute to the Government for the help they have given us in Hull, in relation to building works and factories for which we have passed the plans, and which in many cases we have actually completed building. The total cost is nearly £6 million, which is a massive contribution towards the rebuilding of the industrial life of that city. In addition, we have spent some £3 million on housing. Therefore, we feel that the Government have given great help to Hull in this expenditure of approximately £10 million.
This allocation of steel for rebuilding the central areas is important psychologically rather than economically, because the centre of the city is bare and that has a depressing effect. I believe that the 250 tons has actually been agreed with the departments concerned as representing the building capacity of the city in the next few months. I do not quarrel with that, but I submit that there is only one limit which should apply to these blitzed areas, and that limit is their capacity to use the steel until they catch up with the ordinary commercial development of other cities. It is not sufficient that they should move in step with the other great cities which are undertaking commercial development after the lag of war years; their loss has been such that they must be given a priority to catch up, and that


should be limited only by their capacity to use the steel which we ask the Government to provide. That ought to be at an increasing rate.
The question might be asked, why should Hull receive only 250 tons and Plymouth receive 750 tons when the damage in both cities was comparable? I have to admit that that is largely due to the extreme hostility of a small section of traders in our city who would not agree to the adoption of any plan for rebuilding. Whereas in Plymouth they were able with greater good will to proceed at a more rapid rate, we in Hull have been held up, and even at this moment there is scarcely any agreement. To that extent we suffer from the obstruction and delay caused by some of the more rigid and short-sighted of our own citizens. That is a terrible responsibility for those concerned to have to shoulder, but it is certainly not the responsibility of the Government. Since we are now on the point of a big scheme I ask the Government to make available for us as much steel as we can use in the rebuilding of our central areas. If they do that for us we shall go ahead with greater speed than has been the case hitherto. I ask the Government to give all the sympathetic consideration they can to that request.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: As a representative of another extremely heavily blitzed area I want to endorse the plea of my hon. Friends for more generous consideration by the Government of the special needs of the blitzed areas. I hope that that infinitesimally small allocation of steel which my hon. Friend has calculated with such amazing mathematical skill will be increased very substantially and that my hon. Friend will be able to make an announcement tonight to that effect, because if he does it will give new heart to these blitzed areas.
If I may say so with respect, some of the citizens of these areas think that His Majesty's Government have not always shown the special sympathy which their special needs require. I might be permitted to refer, for instance, to a single illustration from West Ham. Recently there was submitted to the Ministry of Health a scheme for a new health centre,

a necessity for West Ham in view of the destruction of so many doctors' surgeries, a necessity also for the proper implementation of the health scheme itself. The scheme for that health centre was rejected because it would involve the use of 40 tons of steel. Negotiations are now taking place, and I hope they will be successful. I wish to say nothing that may prejudice the possibility of an ultimately happy outcome, but it is typical of the difficulties of these areas that because of a small matter like that of 40 tons of steel a cherished scheme is brought to naught.
The morale of those areas is of vital importance to the country. If there is another war it will be the blitzed areas which once more will be called upon to bear the brunt. We cannot sustain that morale by regarding the blitzed areas as the poor relations of our society. They were blitzed because they represented key industrial centres, key transport centres, of our community. Therefore, it is not in any spirit of apology that my hon. Friends and I ask the Government to give to these areas a most special and urgent consideration in view of their desperate need.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I shall delay the House for only a moment or so. I have listened to the hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland) and I have much sympathy with what he said, but there are two points which made me feel I should rise to my feet and take part in the Debate. The hon. Member mentioned the City of Plymouth and I think he mentioned it as the only city in the West of England. It is not quite that; there are Exeter and Truro. Nevertheless, it is a great city.
The other point which I wish to make is due to the fact that the Minister of Works is here. With all the sympathy and understanding which we have for Plymouth, those across the Tamar, the towns of Saltash and Torpoint, for example, also suffered great damage and hurt by blitz. From time to time we have put in certain requests and I have one in mind at the moment. I shall not go into the particulars now. The answer that we received from the Ministry of Works was that because of the overriding needs of Plymouth this matter has to


wait. I do not think that is a proper answer. This town on Tamarside has suffered great hurt and I propose to go on with this argument with the Minister of Works. I trust that this opportunity which I have taken tonight has once more reinforced that argument.

10.15 p.m.

Mrs. Middleton: I want to put three points tonight. The first is that the total allocation of steel which has been made for this purpose during the present year shall be fully used. It is obvious from what has been said tonight that the ability to use that steel varies as between city and city. We have had two illustrations tonight. It may well be that in some places it will be possible to use a larger amount than has been allocated. In other cases it may be possible to use only a smaller amount. I should like to have an assurance from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury that, whatever the individual circumstances of the cities may be, the full allocation will be used.
The second point I want to put emphasises the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland) namely, the absolute necessity of an assurance of a continuing amount. I understand from conversations I have had with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning that the view of that Ministry is that, in allocating this steel as between the people who want to use it in the cities, the firms that want to put up buildings, care should be taken to see that certain buildings are completed and that they are not erected only as far as the first or second floor and then left to be finished later. The aim should be to complete a building.
Of course, all of us can see the advantage of completing a building, but this aim places the corporations of those cities in a very difficult position, especially in towns like Plymouth and Hull, where large numbers of undertakings have been completely destroyed. Such a policy throws upon the corporation the responsibility of deciding, as between undertaking and undertaking, which should have priority. I suggest that that places the corporation in a very invidious position, and that the only way in which that difficulty can be overcome is by making a start this year with a

number of buildings, with an assurance given us tonight that when this allocation is used more will be forthcoming, so that those buildings that have been started will be completed, without there being the additional expenditure involved in doing a building by stages.
The third point I want to make relates also to something that my hon. Friend said—the difficulty that is arising in reconstruction areas because certain undertakings blitzed during the war have had temporary premises erected in reconstruction areas. I have been in touch with the Minister of Works with regard to one such undertaking which was formerly situated in my constituency, the firm of Thomas and Evans, which produces soft drinks. The Ministry of Food cannot at the present time sponsor that undertaking because it is not an undertaking which is making any contribution to the export trade. These temporary premises are in the middle d the reconstruction area, and if we are to proceed with reconstruction, it is extremely important that the city engineer shall be able to arrange for those people to have accommodation elsewhere. That means an allocation of steel for that undertaking, and if the allocation of steel is not forthcoming for that undertaking—and I agree entirely that it cannot, as things stand at the moment, be sponsored by the Ministry of Food—it means that reconstruction will be held up in the city. I ask my hon. Friend to nay some attention to these three points when he replies.

10.19 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I think that the main point has been the allocation of steel for blitz rebuilding. We all agree that we should like to see the rebuilding of blitzed cities going forward as fast as our resources permit. The only question has really been, how far we should divert, in particular to the building of shops and offices in those blitzed cities, building steel away from other purposes such as housing, factory building, and so forth. Of course, in the first phase after the war the priority in building was given to houses and to factory building, particularly to the building of factories in Development Areas, and to the rebuilding of blitzed factories. Then, the rebuilding of blitzed factories on or near the blitzed sites got priority. In the second stage—18 months or so ago—when the balance


of payments crisis became severe—we shifted the emphasis and put the main priority on industrial schemes which had export value and dollar saving value. Throughout the whole of that period, these blitzed cities have shared to a considerable extent in all these types of buildings.
I think that the hon. Member for Drake, Plymouth (Mr. Medland), was unconsciously misleading when he said that there had been no allocation of steel for blitzed cities up to this winter. As the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) made clear, in Plymouth a great deal of building of all sorts has gone on, and that also applies to the other blitzed cities. It was decided this winter that the time had come to give a special bonus, as it were, for blitzed cities, particularly for rebuilding of shops and offices in the centres of the cities. If we take the case of Plymouth, this 750 tons of steel is very far from being the total allocation of steel for building. There are, in addition, industrial schemes already under construction, or starting this year, including 14 major projects worth £650,000, and taking in themselves 1,520 tons of steel. There will also be many smaller projects —houses, hospitals, schools, etc.—going on. We decided to start with a special bonus allocation for this special purpose.
An annual figure of 5,500 tons of steel which has been mentioned, and which is for 1949, would have been larger, and was intended to have been larger, if the blitzed cities as a whole had been able to use more for these purposes. As the hon. Member for South West Hull (Mr. S. Smith) said quite candidly, in many cases they were not ready, and that was the total amount of steel which it was possible for them to use. My information is that in the case of Plymouth the original figure suggested was 1,000 tons for this year, but actually there were only schemes sufficient for the remaining three-quarters of this year, to make use of 750 tons. However that may be, the steel allocations are made quarterly and it is perfectly open to the Government to revise the amount if the schemes are ready and if the supply of steel permits. Reference was made by the hon. Member for Drake to a building in London in which it was said that 13,000 tons were being used. Perhaps the hon. Member did not realise

that that 13,000 tons is for a period of five years and not strictly comparable with the annual figure.

Mr. Medland: We have all seen it grow under our eyes within the past six months.

Mr. Jay: Although no doubt rapid progress has been made, the total scheme is going to take five years. May I remind my hon. Friend that there was some sort of blitz in London as well. I spent every night in London myself during the war, and I remember one or two incidents. One of the purposes of this particular scheme is to free housing accommodation by moving Government officials into the new building.
However, I think the main question in which we are all interested is how much steel can be allocated, for this special purpose, to the blitzed cities in future. It certainly is my view that we should not be held rigidly within this figure of 5,500 tons provided there are more schemes available, and provided the supply of steel permits. I think my hon. Friend was not quite correct in his arithmetic, because I believe he took the total ingot production of steel and not the supplies of finished steel, which is really the relevant figure.

Mr. Medland: What is the figure?

Mr. Jay: Nevertheless, the fraction calculated in that way would certainly appear rather small; but we cannot undertake to allocate steel for any schemes that are ready regardless of the supply and regardless of the other competing demands of all kinds. We still obviously have to give the first supply to the immediate needs of industrial building, and, of course, to exports of both steel and engineering products in so far as they earn us food and raw materials.
But subject to that, and as schemes come forward, it will be possible, period by period, to review these needs and, if necessary, to raise this allocation. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) that it will be a continuing plan, in the sense that we must obviously seek to avoid interrupting buildings which have once started, although we cannot give an absolute undertaking here and now that the figure will necessarily be identical from one period to the next. With the information we have available


at the moment, I should hope that with those qualifications it ought to rise steadily.

Sir W. Darling: Is it the case, as it is asserted, that there are 30 major steel structures being erected in the county of London, each of them requiring 10,000 tons of steel?

Mr. Jay: Not that I know of. There is one major scheme in Whitehall Gardens which in the end, over five years, will take 13,000 tons; but that is the only major Government scheme at present being built in the whole of London.

Mr. Percy Morris: I think I am right in assuming that the review and further examination to which the Economic Secretary has referred apply to the whole of the blitzed cities—

Mr. Jay: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Morris: —and not only those represented by the hon. Members who have been fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye this evening?

Mr. Alpass: Bristol included?

Mr. Jay: Yes. I should like to make it quite clear that it applies to all the great cities in the South-West of England and in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. D. Marshall: I really must make that clear; cities and towns?

Mr. Jay: Mr. Jay indicated assent.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'Clock.